Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Why are so many Americans morally against helping those in need?
Nobody (well, almost nobody) is morally against helping those in need. What a lot of people are morally against, is gathering resources to help those in need at the tip of the Roman spear, so to speak.
 

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
I'm not sure I understand the dancing stuff. You're saying without the constitution the government would ban all dancing? Or that with smaller government they would not be able to appeal the dancing ban and your tires never would have been slashed? Sorry if I'm being slow but struggling with what point you're making.
I've tried to answer your questions now for about 30 minutes. Sorry, but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. If you advocate for Socialism or Communism or whateverism, it's your right. Just be honest about it. Stop calling me a racist and a sexist to get your way.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
That's why I had it in "" marks. It was sold as open competition when they privatised everything and the reality of our energy market shows IMO the reality of what "open competition" in sectors that need to be controlled leads to.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
EDIT: If you want to fight crony capitalism, the very first thing that needs to happen is the removal of all systems that enable lobbying. Government employees should have a salary, period. It should be illegal to accept any other perks, contributions to their campaign or anything that provides a quantifiable financial benefit. That is the number one source of problems in our country. Not racism, not wealth inequality, not corrupt police. It's lobbying, plain and simple.
Agreed. :)

I've tried to answer your questions now for about 30 minutes. Sorry, but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. If you advocate for Socialism or Communism or whateverism, it's your right. Just be honest about it. Stop calling me a racist and a sexist to get your way.
I'm sorry, I didn't call you anything. I'm hardly one of the left ideologues here. I was just interested in one: what point you were making with the dancing story and two: learning more about how prices are controlled in the American healthcare sector currently. I'm completely open to changing my mind and agreeing outright so if you do decide to reply, that would be good. :)
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
I appreciate the analogy but the solution is to go to the kitchen and make yourself dinner. The fridge, pantry and stovetop are all there ready to go. Identity ideologues pretend the kitchen doesn’t exist.
What if you try to get into the kitchen to make yourself dinner and they won’t let you in because you have the wrong name or skin color? What if you try to make a kitchen and they won’t give you a loan because of your skin color? Or worse, you make your own kitchen and it gets carpet bombed and some prevent you from making another kitchen?

I get what you’re trying to say here, but it is incredibly ignorant of the realities of black America.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,357
11,738
930
Australia
What if you try to get into the kitchen to make yourself dinner and they won’t let you in because you have the wrong name or skin color? What if you try to make a kitchen and they won’t give you a loan because of your skin color? Or worse, you make your own kitchen and it gets carpet bombed and some prevent you from making another kitchen?

I get what you’re trying to say here, but it is incredibly ignorant of the realities of black America.
People aren't being denied loans because they're black; it's because they don't have the credit history. What happened last time the banks gave out loans to people who weren't able to repay them?
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
People aren't being denied loans because they're black; it's because they don't have the credit history. What happened last time the banks gave out loans to people who weren't able to repay them?
See, this right here is the ignorance part. Not to say that there isn’t some truth to it (black people are more likely to be poor and have bad credit hence denied loans), but to imply that black people just aren’t working harder is not looking at the whole picture.

For example, I noticed you said nothing about my “carpet bombing” metaphor. That is in reference to the Tulsa race riot where the most affluent black neighborhood in America was completely destroyed because some white people thought a black man raped a white woman. Thousands of black people lost everything. Those are generations of wealth completely destroyed. Generations of people that will be unable to escape poverty. Many of them will turn to crime as most poor people do.

If you want to talk about these issues, then do your research. There are studies after studies documenting the difficulties black peoples face in getting jobs or loans that they are qualified for due to their race. Are there some black people whou could get off their ass? Sure, you’ll find moochers in every population. And perhaps we can debate what to do about the minority of moochers. But to somehow imply that these moochers are anything close to the majority and that many of the issues black people face isn’t due to systemic racism is just arguing in bad faith and a waste of time. Again, we can debate how to tackle these issues and to what degree, but to say ignorant stuff like “black people aren’t being denied loans because of their race” is naive. I know that’s what you want to think, but that is not the reality. Refusing it or attacking some whataboutism’d problem is not going to solve it or make it go away. We will keep having this problem until America deals with it.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,357
11,738
930
Australia
See, this right here is the ignorance part. Not to say that there isn’t some truth to it (black people are more likely to be poor and have bad credit hence denied loans), but to imply that black people just aren’t working harder is not looking at the whole picture.

For example, I noticed you said nothing about my “carpet bombing” metaphor. That is in reference to the Tulsa race riot where the most affluent black neighborhood in America was completely destroyed because some white people thought a black man raped a white woman. Thousands of black people lost everything. Those are generations of wealth completely destroyed. Generations of people that will be unable to escape poverty. Many of them will turn to crime as most poor people do.

If you want to talk about these issues, then do your research. There are studies after studies documenting the difficulties black peoples face in getting jobs or loans that they are qualified for due to their race. Are there some black people whou could get off their ass? Sure, you’ll find moochers in every population. And perhaps we can debate what to do about the minority of moochers. But to somehow imply that these moochers are anything close to the majority and that many of the issues black people fave aren’t due to systemic racism is just arguing in bad faith and a waste of time.
You have obviously read something between the lines that wasn't in my post. Your post just builds layer upon layer of presupposition and ends up responding to things that weren't even hinted at, let alone explicitly said. Don't project your experiences with other people onto me; please only respond to what I have actually said.

There is absolutely a correlation between race and poverty, but that does not necessarily mean that racism is the cause. Conversely, it doesn't mean that it isn't either, but the point of the kitchen metaphor is that no sustainable solution will be found by demanding others fix it for you. Inequality exists, but equity is not the solution.
 
Last edited:

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
You have obviously read something between the lines that wasn't in my post. Your post just builds layer upon layer of presupposition and ends up responding to things that weren't even hinted at, let alone explicitly said. Don't project your experiences with other people onto me; please only respond to what I have actually said.

There is absolutely a correlation between race and poverty, but that does not necessarily mean that racism is the cause. Conversely, it doesn't mean that it isn't either, but the point of the kitchen metaphor is that no sustainable solution will be found by demanding others fix it for you. Inequality exists, but equity is not the solution.
And your post is a whole lot of words to obfuscate the fact that you said something that is demonstrably false (specifically, that the reason black peoples don’t get loans is because of poor credit/poverty - this is demonstrably false. Lots of studies have accounted for this and have concluded that race is the driver. You pulled shit out of your ass and didn’t bother to fact check it). I did not presuppose anything. There was a metaphor about people asking to get their fair share of food while others are being fed. You said the correct thing to do is go to the kitchen, which is logical of course. I then pointed out using the same metaphor that some people are not let into the kitchen because of their name/race, are denied an opportunity to build a kitchen for the same, or had built a kitchen in the past and had it carpet bombed then blocked from rebuilding. You then said something demonstrably false as I pointed out above.

There is a pretty clear train of logic here. I didn’t presuppose anything. And before you pull this one out: no, I didn’t call you racist. Just ignorant and with stronger opinions than you should have considering you demonstrably know fuck all about the subject matter.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,357
11,738
930
Australia
And your post is a whole lot of words to obfuscate the fact that you said something that is demonstrably false (specifically, that the reason black peoples don’t get loans is because of poor credit/poverty - this is demonstrably false. Lots of studies have accounted for this and have concluded that race is the driver. You pulled shit out of your ass and didn’t bother to fact check it). I did not presuppose anything. There was a metaphor about people asking to get their fair share of food while others are being fed. You said the correct thing to do is go to the kitchen, which is logical of course. I then pointed out using the same metaphor that some people are not let into the kitchen because of their name/race, are denied and opportunity to build a kitchen for the same, or had built a kitchen in the past and had it carpet bombed then blocked from rebuilding. You then said something demonstrably false as I pointed out above.

There is a pretty clear train of logic here. I didn’t presuppose anything. And before you pull this one out: no, I don’t think you’re racist. Just ignorant and with stronger opinions than you should have considering you demonstrably know fuck all about the subject matter.
Go on, share these studies then.
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
Go on, share these studies then.
Read the article posted above by ssolitaire. Post your thoughts. I’m not playing this “show me the studies that the earth is not flat” game with you because you have not demonstrated that you are arguing in good faith.

Also, saying stuff like “there is a correlation between race and poverty but that does not mean that racism is or isn’t the cause” is an absurd, useless pseudo intellectual non-statement that doesn’t solve anything other than “winning like Jordan Peterson ”. It is more useful to test or at lest discuss a hypothesis one way or the other . Fortunately people much more intelligent than you and I have already done so.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,357
11,738
930
Australia
Read the article posted above by ssolitaire. Post your thoughts. I’m not playing this “show me the studies that the earth is not flat” game with you because you have not demonstrated that you are arguing in good faith.
Oh, sod off with your "arguing in good faith" bullshit. Have you read the study cited in ssolitaire's link? For reference, here it is: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22004.pdf.

It states that there are group-level, marketwide racial and ethnic differences (which we agree on) but that the primary causes are:

1. Differential access to lenders and concentration of high-risk lenders in low socioeconomic areas.
2. Foreclosure risk.

Both of these are socioeconomic (and, by extension, education) factors in a complex, multivariate analysis that you're attempting to distill down to a single factor: racism. You're Cathy Newmaning me on race.

As for your edit after I had already replied, what it meant was that racism may or may not be a factor but you can’t quantify it and acting as though it is the sole factor will not contribute to a sustainable solution. I think that was pretty clear in the original statement but you simply weren’t listening.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
Prior research has found that members of these minority groups are less likely to comparison shop for mortgage products, which in turn increases the chances that they’ll wind up with the first offer they receive, and those offers tend to be expensive ones.
There is your answer. It is not racism its capitalism. If the chances are much higher that they will buy with these high conditions of course people will use them. They are not doing it because they are black or Hispanic. They are doing it because it will get them more money.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
There is your answer. It is not racism its capitalism. If the chances are much higher that they will buy with these high conditions of course people will use them. They are not doing it because they are black or Hispanic. They are doing it because it will get them more money.
It's not that one thing, but even that one resulting practice makes them liable to getting sued for discrimination. We gotta get out of this "oh it's one thing said here!" when the article is saying a variety of things, and is using words such as "more likely, can lead to, etc." The point isn't to find a sentence that matches your view, but to take the whole thing in context. Just do some light research as well, you'll find banks such as BOA, JP Morgan, GFI, Wells Fargo, and more getting sued and settling over red-handed discrimination within the last decade.

It's capitalism, but...:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/nyregion/hudson-city-bank-settlement.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,357
11,738
930
Australia
It's not that one thing, but even that one resulting practice makes them liable to getting sued for discrimination. We gotta get out of this "oh it's one thing said here!" when the article is saying a variety of things, and is using words such as "more likely, can lead to, etc." The point isn't to find a sentence that matches your view, but to take the whole thing in context. Just do some light research as well, you'll find banks such as BOA, JP Morgan, GFI, Wells Fargo, and more getting sued and settling over red-handed discrimination within the last decade.

It's capitalism, but...:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/nyregion/hudson-city-bank-settlement.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
That article further reinforces that it’s a matter of socioeconomic status. Blacks are disproportionately represented in lower socioeconomic groups so it logically follows that they are disproportionately affected by high risk lending practices. Framing it as a race issue marginalises the non-black low socioeconomic groups that are also affected.

I’m interested to hear what you think a reasonable solution would be.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
It's not that one thing, but even that one resulting practice makes them liable to getting sued for discrimination. We gotta get out of this "oh it's one thing said here!" when the article is saying a variety of things, and is using words such as "more likely, can lead to, etc." The point isn't to find a sentence that matches your view, but to take the whole thing in context. Just do some light research as well, you'll find banks such as BOA, JP Morgan, GFI, Wells Fargo, and more getting sued and settling over red-handed discrimination within the last decade.

It's capitalism, but...:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/nyregion/hudson-city-bank-settlement.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
The whole article you posted was about and it was not only this sentence. And the other article is how this resulted in this redlining. I think banks do not want to deal with it because it sparks trouble. It can spark lawsuits etc. IT is a fucking hellish circle but in my opinion it has nothing to do with racism. They are not doing this because they are not white. They are doing this based on experience events in the past and how they get the most money out of it.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Read the article posted above by ssolitaire. Post your thoughts. I’m not playing this “show me the studies that the earth is not flat” game with you because you have not demonstrated that you are arguing in good faith.

Also, saying stuff like “there is a correlation between race and poverty but that does not mean that racism is or isn’t the cause” is an absurd, useless pseudo intellectual non-statement that doesn’t solve anything other than “winning like Jordan Peterson ”. It is more useful to test or at lest discuss a hypothesis one way or the other . Fortunately people much more intelligent than you and I have already done so.
Yeah, somebody here isn't arguing in good faith, alright.

You're quite obviously entering this already having decided racism is the main/sole cause, then working backwards from there justifying that faulty assumption however you can, deliberately ignoring all other factors. The lenders by and large care more about making money than they do about stupid race baiting and identity politics. And I have no idea what "winning like Jordan Peterson" means.
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
Oh, sod off with your "arguing in good faith" bullshit. Have you read the study cited in ssolitaire's link? For reference, here it is: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22004.pdf.

It states that there are group-level, marketwide racial and ethnic differences (which we agree on) but that the primary causes are:

1. Differential access to lenders and concentration of high-risk lenders in low socioeconomic areas.
2. Foreclosure risk.

Both of these are socioeconomic (and, by extension, education) factors in a complex, multivariate analysis that you're attempting to distill down to a single factor: racism. You're Cathy Newmaning me on race.

As for your edit after I had already replied, what it meant was that racism may or may not be a factor but you can’t quantify it and acting as though it is the sole factor will not contribute to a sustainable solution. I think that was pretty clear in the original statement but you simply weren’t listening.
Yeah, somebody here isn't arguing in good faith, alright.

You're quite obviously entering this already having decided racism is the main/sole cause, then working backwards from there justifying that faulty assumption however you can, deliberately ignoring all other factors. The lenders by and large care more about making money than they do about stupid race baiting and identity politics. And I have no idea what "winning like Jordan Peterson" means.
There is your answer. It is not racism its capitalism. If the chances are much higher that they will buy with these high conditions of course people will use them. They are not doing it because they are black or Hispanic. They are doing it because it will get them more money.
I'm just going to respond to all of you since I think you have fairly similar comments.

I'm not sure you're fully understanding the implications of what you just read:

Taken as a whole, the results of our analysis imply that the substantial market-wide racial and ethnic differences in the incidence of high cost mortgages arise because African-American and Hispanic borrowers tend to be more concentrated at high-risk lenders. Strikingly, this pattern holds for all borrowers even those with relatively unblemished credit records and lowrisk loans. High-risk lenders are not only more likely to provide high cost loans overall, but are especially likely to do so for African-American and Hispanic borrowers. In fact, these lenders are largely responsible for the differential treatment of equally qualified borrowers; minimal racial and ethnic differences exist among lenders that serve less risky segments of the market.
The results imply large differences in the likelihood of a having a high cost loan even for low-risk African-American borrowers, (i.e. those with prime credit scores, conforming loan to value ratios and reasonably low debt to income ratios) relative to their white counterparts...
It makes sense that blacks/hispanics are more likely to be concentrated at high-risk lenders (since they tend to be poorer). However, what doesn't make sense is that even blacks/hispanics with relatively good credit and lowrisk loans still get treated as high-risk. Not only that, but high risk lenders are much more likely to offer shitty options to blacks/hispanics regardless of their qualifications. This does not happen with non minorities. That is the problem.

It does also talk about lender foreclosure risk being the primary driver of the lender fixed effects and disparities. This makes some sense (i.e. poor people are more likely to foreclose; black people are more likely to be poor) but then there is this from the same article:

In particular, the greater financial burden associated with high cost loans not only leads directly to slower wealth accumulation due to the higher mortgage payments, but is also associated with a higher risk of future delinquency and default, with serious long-term consequences for long-term credit scores and home ownership rates. These effects can be expected to exacerbate existing wealth gaps (Charles and Hurst 2002; Gittleman and Wolff 2004).
So essentially even blacks/hispanics with relatively good credit get treated as high risk and are offered shitty loan packages that are more likely to lead to default/foreclosure/slower wealth accumulation. When these people foreclose, it then increases their foreclosure risk which then leads to even shittier loan packages. It's a vicious cycle.

Of course, to be fair the article also points out that blacks that do not deal with high risk lenders get about the same loan options than whites but these blacks are a minority. So essentially, it seems that the way to fix this particular issue is to get more black people to deal with low risk lenders, which requires getting out of poverty which in itself is incredibly difficult to do given the other socioeconomic issues minorities face. And guess what, the vicious cycle above is one of those socioeconomic issues.

And also, this is ONE study on ONE issue. There are a variety of discriminatory practices that minorities face and these are all interconnected into the complex web of institutional racism:

1. Mortgage loan originators are less likely respond to, offer details to, or follow-up with black people
2. Here is an article where a bank had to pay $10.6 million over discrimination charges because the bank had a policy to turn down loans entirely because of race (I remembered this article because I have family members that benefited modestly from that settlement).
3. Here's a 2005 study with a fixed-effects model indicating that black men spend significantly more time searching for work, acquire less work experience, and experience less stable employment than do whites with otherwise equivalent characteristics (not sure if you can access this as I get free access through work).
4. Most people have heard about this study on black-sounding names but I'll post it anyway.
5. Blacks and hispanics experience housing discrimination in the form less financial assistance, less opportunities to view units and steering into less wealthy communities.
6. Another read on racial housing discrimination.
7. A meta-analysis that concludes that discriminatory practices against blacks are at the same level as they were in 1989.
8. Blacks face higher hurdles when it comes to lending practices/small business loans. Another link on the same.

This doesn't even scratch the surface. I haven't even gotten to issues like discriminatory policing, education, voter suppression/gerrymandering, the war on drugs, incarceration rates, etc.

I think part of the problem here is that when someone says "racism," you all tend to think of it a a single isolated issue and then claim "well race is not the sole cause; we need to consider poverty/education/class/etc." Essentially, your mistake is that you think that racism is a "single factor." It isn't. It's like saying "a slow economy is just one issue; what about unemployment" It's a patently absurd statement to make that, again, highlights the staggering amount ignorance you have on the subject matter.

Slavery > centuries of poverty and slow/nonexistent wealth accumulation > increased risk of negative outcomes (less education, more crime, etc) > perpetuated stereotypes/racist institutions > institutional racism > continued worse outcomes

This is how racism works. It is an incredibly complex problem with multiple feedback loops. While I agree with both of you that we need to consider all its factors, there is a deliberate willingness to ignore the race part of it as "race baiting." That is a problem and if you are going to be intellectually honest about this debate, you need to at least consider the possibility that race is an important factor that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Now, how do we tackle it? I don't know. I'm not sure that identity politics is effective because it seems counter-intuitive in a world that is becoming increasingly diverse and interconnected. But, I also don't think that burying one's head in the sand and pretending like race isn't playing a pretty big part is the way to do it.


I've offered you a fair amount of studies/reading material on why race plays a big part in the issues you just quoted. Now it's your turn. If you are going to argue that racism has nothing to do with it, and that this is solely capitalism, let's see some of yours. Put up or shut up (mainly you @Dunki, since it seems you're the only one actually saying this).
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
Samban, you are asking people two hold two opposite thoughts in their head at the same time. You will never get a satisfactory answer. Either capitalists are greedy and care for nothing but money, or they are racists who will forgo money to keep certain people down. Which statement is true?

We are talking about now, not 50 or 100 years ago, but now.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
Samban, you are asking people two hold two opposite thoughts in their head at the same time. You will never get a satisfactory answer. Either capitalists are greedy and care for nothing but money, or they are racists who will forgo money to keep certain people down. Which statement is true?

We are talking about now, not 50 or 100 years ago, but now.
Nah. Advocates play up one truth to push an agenda, but the world many times doesn't work like that. You can have both legit and non-legit forces operating to any level of variance. But we can parse through that.

They don't forgo money to keep people down, they are making more money despite and let it continue because they've justified it in a few ways. The end as Dunki implied is a vicious cycle, and a significant cause of that is race and inequality in history leading to present practice. It can be fixed, but it isn't willed.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
I'm just going to respond to all of you since I think you have fairly similar comments.

I'm not sure you're fully understanding the implications of what you just read:





It makes sense that blacks/hispanics are more likely to be concentrated at high-risk lenders (since they tend to be poorer). However, what doesn't make sense is that even blacks/hispanics with relatively good credit and lowrisk loans still get treated as high-risk. Not only that, but high risk lenders are much more likely to offer shitty options to blacks/hispanics regardless of their qualifications. This does not happen with non minorities. That is the problem.

It does also talk about lender foreclosure risk being the primary driver of the lender fixed effects and disparities. This makes some sense (i.e. poor people are more likely to foreclose; black people are more likely to be poor) but then there is this from the same article:



So essentially even blacks/hispanics with relatively good credit get treated as high risk and are offered shitty loan packages that are more likely to lead to default/foreclosure/slower wealth accumulation. When these people foreclose, it then increases their foreclosure risk which then leads to even shittier loan packages. It's a vicious cycle.

Of course, to be fair the article also points out that blacks that do not deal with high risk lenders get about the same loan options than whites but these blacks are a minority. So essentially, it seems that the way to fix this particular issue is to get more black people to deal with low risk lenders, which requires getting out of poverty which in itself is incredibly difficult to do given the other socioeconomic issues minorities face. And guess what, the vicious cycle above is one of those socioeconomic issues.

And also, this is ONE study on ONE issue. There are a variety of discriminatory practices that minorities face and these are all interconnected into the complex web of institutional racism:

1. Mortgage loan originators are less likely respond to, offer details to, or follow-up with black people
2. Here is an article where a bank had to pay $10.6 million over discrimination charges because the bank had a policy to turn down loans entirely because of race (I remembered this article because I have family members that benefited modestly from that settlement).
3. Here's a 2005 study with a fixed-effects model indicating that black men spend significantly more time searching for work, acquire less work experience, and experience less stable employment than do whites with otherwise equivalent characteristics (not sure if you can access this as I get free access through work).
4. Most people have heard about this study on black-sounding names but I'll post it anyway.
5. Blacks and hispanics experience housing discrimination in the form less financial assistance, less opportunities to view units and steering into less wealthy communities.
6. Another read on racial housing discrimination.
7. A meta-analysis that concludes that discriminatory practices against blacks are at the same level as they were in 1989.
8. Blacks face higher hurdles when it comes to lending practices/small business loans. Another link on the same.

This doesn't even scratch the surface. I haven't even gotten to issues like discriminatory policing, education, voter suppression/gerrymandering, the war on drugs, incarceration rates, etc.

I think part of the problem here is that when someone says "racism," you all tend to think of it a a single isolated issue and then claim "well race is not the sole cause; we need to consider poverty/education/class/etc." Essentially, your mistake is that you think that racism is a "single factor." It isn't. It's like saying "a slow economy is just one issue; what about unemployment" It's a patently absurd statement to make that, again, highlights the staggering amount ignorance you have on the subject matter.

Slavery > centuries of poverty and slow/nonexistent wealth accumulation > increased risk of negative outcomes (less education, more crime, etc) > perpetuated stereotypes/racist institutions > institutional racism > continued worse outcomes

This is how racism works. It is an incredibly complex problem with multiple feedback loops. While I agree with both of you that we need to consider all its factors, there is a deliberate willingness to ignore the race part of it as "race baiting." That is a problem and if you are going to be intellectually honest about this debate, you need to at least consider the possibility that race is an important factor that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Now, how do we tackle it? I don't know. I'm not sure that identity politics is effective because it seems counter-intuitive in a world that is becoming increasingly diverse and interconnected. But, I also don't think that burying one's head in the sand and pretending like race isn't playing a pretty big part is the way to do it.


I've offered you a fair amount of studies/reading material on why race plays a big part in the issues you just quoted. Now it's your turn. If you are going to argue that racism has nothing to do with it, and that this is solely capitalism, let's see some of yours. Put up or shut up (mainly you @Dunki, since it seems you're the only one actually saying this).
Here is the whole problem with this. I do not even deny these problems exist, the problem I have is their reasoning for it. For example with the black sounding names. How about people who got burned by black people who for example could not pay? If it were my business and I got burned more than once from the same type of group I would also be more careful. Is it fair? Hell no it is not but this is the perception and experience people had. They are not doing this because they hate black people they are doing this because they want to keep their business they want to have no trouble etc. Shouting racism is and will not help here.

IS there a esy way to fix this? O there is not. In my opinion the only thing you actually can do if give black people a brighter future through education, to safer neighborhoods etc. So within time these statistics and their experiences change so they get the trust they should have had from the beginning. As I said somehow we need to break this hellish circle and to do this we need to start from the ground.

People need to get rid of the idea that these problems exist because the evil white man wants to keep the black man down.
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
Nah. Advocates play up one truth to push an agenda, but the world many times doesn't work like that. You can have both legit and non-legit forces operating to any level of variance. But we can parse through that.

They don't forgo money to keep people down, they are making more money despite and let it continue because they've justified it in a few ways. The end as Dunki implied is a vicious cycle, and a significant cause of that is race and inequality in history leading to present practice. It can be fixed, but it isn't willed.

I read the article you posted and I still see two opposing truths trying to be held at the same time. It's either greed or racism, it can't be both.
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
Here is the whole problem with this. I do not even deny these problems exist, the problem I have is their reasoning for it. For example with the black sounding names. How about people who got burned by black people who for example could not pay? If it were my business and I got burned more than once from the same type of group I would also be more careful. Is it fair? Hell no it is not but this is the perception and experience people had. They are not doing this because they hate black people they are doing this because they want to keep their business they want to have no trouble etc. Shouting racism is and will not help here.

IS there a esy way to fix this? O there is not. In my opinion the only thing you actually can do if give black people a brighter future through education, to safer neighborhoods etc. So within time these statistics and their experiences change so they get the trust they should have had from the beginning. As I said somehow we need to break this hellish circle and to do this we need to start from the ground.

People need to get rid of the idea that these problems exist because the evil white man wants to keep the black man down.
What about when white people dont pay? Or do you think white people don’t also do these things? And I’d guess that more white people do these things because there’s way more of them. What about when white people crash the economy through their banking practices then use taxpayer money to bail themselves out at the expense of everyone? That doesn’t seem to affect white names on a resume as it should per your logic. Again, stop pulling all this stuff out of your ass. Show me the literature that supports any of these claims.

And yes, part of fixing this problem is taking steps to improve education and housing for minorities. But when this happens, some people complain that they are getting handouts.

Samban, you are asking people two hold two opposite thoughts in their head at the same time. You will never get a satisfactory answer. Either capitalists are greedy and care for nothing but money, or they are racists who will forgo money to keep certain people down. Which statement is true?

We are talking about now, not 50 or 100 years ago, but now.
I didn’t actually make that statement, but even if I did, capitalism and racism are not mutually exclusive. For example ...oh I don’t know...certain white people using slaves to pick cotton for their business. That’s pretty capitalist.

Giving black people higher interest rates for the same loan despite similar credit/qualifications as whites is another example.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
What about when white people dont pay? Or do you think white people don’t also do these things? And I’d guess that more white people do these things because there’s way more of them. What about when white people crash the economy through their banking practices then use taxpayer money to bail themselves out at the expense of everyone? That doesn’t seem to affect white names on a resume as it should per your logic. Again, stop pulling all this stuff out of your ass. Show me the literature that supports any of these claims.

And yes, part of fixing this problem is taking steps to improve education and housing for minorities. But when this happens, some people complain that they are getting handouts.



I didn’t actually make that statement, but even if I did, capitalism and racism are not mutually exclusive. For example ...oh I don’t know...certain white people using slaves to pick cotton for their business. That’s pretty capitalist.

Giving black people higher interest rates for the same loan despite similar credit/qualifications as whites is another example.
Reading a few articles they also state that its true. Another example would be black people even if they are 11-13% of the american population are causing over 50% of homicides in the US. These statistics just like the housing one needs to change.

Again these statistic exist and that makes people more aware of it. And to change this you need to change these statistics first. As for fixing. Fix neighborhoods, fix not on race fix on poverty. Again many of these neighborhoods are black so you automatically will be fixing the problems. Do not go for quotas based on race or gender, go for poverty. Get these underpriviliged families hope to also fix the problems black people have.

People only get angry or jealous when they have the feeling they are being left out.
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
Reading a few articles they also state that its true. Another example would be black people even if they are 11-13% of the american population are causing over 50% of homicides in the US. These statistics just like the housing one needs to change.

Again these statistic exist and that makes people more aware of it. And to change this you need to change these statistics first. As for fixing. Fix neighborhoods, fix not on race fix on poverty. Again many of these neighborhoods are black so you automatically will be fixing the problems. Do not go for quotas based on race or gender, go for poverty. Get these underpriviliged families hope to also fix the problems black people have.

People only get angry or jealous when they have the feeling they are being left out.
...I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say with that homicide quote.

Show me the literature supporting any of your claims. This is the third time I’m asking.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
...I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say with that homicide quote.

Show me the literature supporting any of your claims. This is the third time I’m asking.
The homicide quote was an example how statistics work against black people. And with housing it is the same. Again every article which was posted and which I have read (sorry not all of them) suggesting that these sttistics of not paying etc are true. You can not deny facts but you can try to change these statistics for the better.

As for the homocide part: I thought its well known in the US...

according to the latest estimates from the FBI. And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. Again this means 13% of the population are causing 52% of homicides. These statistics are real and they need to change to also change the perception of black people. And to do this you need to start at the bottom. Give black kids a future, through education and a safe neighborhood.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination.

Higher poverty rates among various urban black communities might explain the difference in crime rates, although the evidence is mixed.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Again just an example since I do not have the housing statistics how statistics hurt black people. But we can not just ignore them we need to change them
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,003
750
895
USA
Samban:

It's interesting you conflate capitalism with greed. Capitalism is a system with which one exchanges goods and services. Greed is the state of a person's heart. Racism is also in a person's heart. If I'm a greedy person, who cares what color the person who's money I'm taking is, the money is all green! Is some money better than other money?

The system is designed for all of us to lose, unless you're embedded in the system. A greedy person is just as likely to take my money as yours, no matter our color. If you enjoy youtube videos, might I suggest looking up some from Dick Gregory. He was a comedian who passed recently, but had an insight into the human condition that feels true to me. Maybe he could explain it better than I can.
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
810
301
0
The homicide quote was an example how statistics work against black people. And with housing it is the same. Again every article which was posted and which I have read (sorry not all of them) suggesting that these sttistics of not paying etc are true. You can not deny facts but you can try to change these statistics for the better.

As for the homocide part: I thought its well known in the US...

according to the latest estimates from the FBI. And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. Again this means 13% of the population are causing 52% of homicides. These statistics are real and they need to change to also change the perception of black people. And to do this you need to start at the bottom. Give black kids a future, through education and a safe neighborhood.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Again just an example since I do not have the housing statistics how statistics hurt black people. But we can not just ignore them we need to change them
To be clear, I don't disagree with your statistic about blacks having disproportionately higher homicide rates than whites. In fact, it all kind of plays into what I'm talking about. Poor people in general are much less likely to be well educated, are more likely to have maladaptive social/cultural values, and are more likely to commit crimes. Due to centuries of slavery and decades racist laws, blacks are much more likely to be poor than whites which is what is causing these statistics. I agree with you that these statistics need to change for things to get better for black people and minorities in general. But to change these, we need to confront institutional racism. You can't do that by pretending that racism doesn't exist today or that all of this doesn't have a root cause in slavery and racism.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,857
6,103
335
To be clear, I don't disagree with your statistic about blacks having disproportionately higher homicide rates than whites. In fact, it all kind of plays into what I'm talking about. Poor people in general are much less likely to be well educated, are more likely to have maladaptive social/cultural values, and are more likely to commit crimes. Due to centuries of slavery and decades racist laws, blacks are much more likely to be poor than whites which is what is causing these statistics. I agree with you that these statistics need to change for things to get better for black people and minorities in general. But to change these, we need to confront institutional racism. You can't do that by pretending that racism doesn't exist today or that all of this doesn't have a root cause in slavery and racism.
I never said that racism does not exist. I am saying that these people are not racist in general. They follow the way of capitalism. And what do you want to do? Force them to sell to black people? Force them to hire black people? Again all this will have the opposite effect in the long run because other people will feel left out become more angry and than you have people really hating black people for their advantages and special treatment.

To change this it needs time. It needs generations of change and it can not be accomplished by force in a few years or so. But this is where we might never come together since I believe forcing people to something will not solve any problem.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,520
6,013
475
And also, this is ONE study on ONE issue. There are a variety of discriminatory practices that minorities face and these are all interconnected into the complex web of institutional racism:
6. Another read on racial housing discrimination.
7. A meta-analysis that concludes that discriminatory practices against blacks are at the same level as they were in 1989.
First of all, let me say that I care about equality. I found both of these studies interesting and do not wish to diminish them in any way. I've studied both of them and I feel like you are jumping a bit to early conclusions. I'll mostly focus on the racial housing discrimination, but much of what I say can be applied to both studies. Let me explain:

Discrimination does not equal racism

Don't get me wrong, I find discrimination to be absolutely objectionable and I wish more would be done to counteract it, but you are committing a logical fallacy by equating discrimination with racism. Both of these studies examine discrimination in american society, but in no way do they pertain to racism. They manage to show that inequalities exist, but they don't explain why they exist. You merely assume it's because of racism, but that's not what these studies are claiming, like at all.

I don't doubt for a second that minorities are oftentimes discriminated against, when it comes to housing. The study you mentioned is pretty clear on that. But if you'd carefully read the study you could see that the problem isn't related to 'institutional racism'. Most of these inequalities are due to discriminatory practices on the individual level, namely the landlords:



I think that merely assuming that all landlords are racist is way too reductive and doesn't really do the issue justice:

First of all rental housing in the U.S. is mostly in the hands of landlords who are small owners who easily enter and leave the market and who are generally not subject to any training or licensing requirements. Individuals own more than half of all rental units. Half of individual rental property owners are fifty-five years old or over. These older owners and small property owners in general tend to run their own properties without employing professional agents. In that sense, we cannot say that this discrimination is institutionalized at all. In fact, due to anti-discrimination laws, institutions are much less likely to discriminate based on race as evidenced by the graph shown above.

When it comes to discrimination, we have to take into account the phenomenon of 'social stigmatization'. So we have to ask the question, why minorities and black people are often stigmatized when it comes to rental distribution. If you take a look at the study you posted, you can easily see exactly who is suffering from discrimination the most:



Exactly, as you can see it is black females. It is no mystery that black females belong to one of the least economically advantaged people in american society. Hence why they are also the most likely to be unable to pay their rent. Unfortunately, most landlords are aware of that fact. Hence why they are more reluctant to rent their space to black females because they don't want to deal with the hassle of possible evictions.

If you look at who is most likely to be evicted and why, this becomes even more apparent:

As with many legal issues that impact low-income renters, the problem discriminates by race: Black households are most likely to be at risk for eviction—in the past year, 11.9 percent of black households had faced an eviction threat, as compared to 5.4 percent of white ones. While the published report does not include a gender breakdown, Salviati says women are slightly disadvantaged: 4.9 percent of women and 4.5 percent of men had been threatened with evictions in the past year.

Education matters, too. “The least educated segments of the population are most likely to face eviction,” says Salviati—those who had only a high school education were twice as likely to be threatened with eviction as those who attended even some college. “Those comparisons get even a little bit more stark if you’re looking at the more granular breakdowns—when you’re looking at those who didn’t even graduate high school [15 percent] versus those with a graduate degree [3 percent].” [...] Asian households are least likely to face eviction, a measure that also holds when controlling for education.

Perhaps the starkest finding is that it’s families with children who are the most vulnerable of all—almost twice as many households with kids reported a difficulty in paying rent within the past three months compared to those without. Single parents with children face the highest rates of eviction, at 30.1 percent, but married couples with children aren’t far behind, at 27.2 percent.
Considering that the majority of landlords are single individuals with no professional background who are running their own small property, we can safely assume that they are first and foremost interested in renting property to people who pose the least risk of being unable to pay the rent. Unfortunately, this attitude mostly discriminates against black single-parent females from a low educational background. I'm sure that some racist landlords still exist, especially considering their age, but it's more probable that the vast majority of them are more interested in risk-free rental. Especially considering that so many of them are single individuals with small properties who lack the necessary training to deal with nerve-wrecking evictions.



This becomes even more apparent when you consider that qualification plays a huge role when it comes to rental discrimination. Well qualified people, no matter their race, have much less hassle to find a place for rent because they tend to be more financially stable. Considering that many black people live in economically disfavored areas with bad educational infrastructure, they suffer severe disadvantages in that regard. From the HUD study in 2012:

When well-qualified minority homeseekers contact housing providers to inquire about recently advertised housing units, they generally are just as likely as equally qualified white homeseekers to get an appointment and learn about at least one available housing unit. However, when differences in treatment occur, white homeseekers are more likely to be favored than minorities. [...] There can be no question that the housing circumstances of whites and minorities differ substantially. Whites are more likely to own their homes, to occupy better quality homes and apartments, and to live in safer, more opportunity rich neighborhoods. However, it is less obvious whether—or how much—these disparities result from current racial and ethnic discrimination in the housing market because whites and minorities differ systematically in employment, income, assets, and debts.
The housing study doesn't take into account the landlord's race, hence why it's impossible to say whether the discrimination is due to racism. Discrimination can have many causes, not only racism. People in general have a built-in tendency to favor those who look like themselves over those who appear different. The concept of favoring “ingroup” members over outsiders is a natural phenomenon that affects all people equally, it's called 'in-group favoritism'. But much more importantly, within any given society, people have a strong tendency to prefer advantaged groups over disadvantaged groups, even if said persons are themselves disadvantaged:

Both lay people and psychologists often assume that people prefer those who share a group identity and are thus in some respects similar to themselves. Yet numerous studies show that members of disadvantaged groups often prefer members of other, more advantaged groups.
This implies that white as well as black landlords are likely to discriminate against disadvantaged groups and/or give preferred treatment to advantaged groups. This kind of discrimination cannot be tackled by the mere notion of 'racism' as they pertain to psychological and behavioral mechanisms that are ingrained in every human being. Again from the HUD study mentioned above:

Black renters face significantly higher levels of discrimination if they are male or visit larger housing providers. Hispanic renters face higher levels of discrimination if they are higher income or meet with a female agent. Asians face higher levels of discrimination if they meet a black agent or if they meet a different agent than their white counterpart. No relationships are observed between the racial/ethnic or socioeconomic composition of census tracts where advertised units are located and levels of discrimination. The estimated effects of race of agent do not provide support for the hypothesis that minority agents give preferred treatment to homeseekers of their own race or ethnicity.
Does this still represent discrimination? Of course it does and I really hope that something can be done about it. But to just assume that 'racism' the main cause for these discriminatory behaviors is just way too shortsighted. Many of the reasons I mentioned above are first and foremost related to socioeconomic factors, mainly education and income. I'm aware that the U.S. has a specific racial history, nevertheless these economical factors are in-line with similar discriminatory practices in other countries all over the world.

According to the study I linked:

Not every instance of white-favored treatment should be interpreted as systematic discrimination. In some tests, random factors may contribute to observed differences in treatment; in other tests, minorities may experience more favorable treatment than their white partners for systematic reasons.
It should also be noted, that anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. (such as the fair housing act) have largely contributed to a vast decline in the most discriminatory practices. While I certainly don't want to diminish current discrimination, it should be noted that current legislation does indeed contribute to a positive development. What should be done to combat current discrimination is improving the economical status of disfavored classes, be it through education or job opportunities:



Assuming that anti-discriminatory laws are in place, social stigmatization of disenfranchised social classes in relation to their economical disadvantages are more often than not the main cause of inequalities. Landlords (no matter if they are white or black or whatever) are less likely to rent places if they perceive it to pose an increased risk of a possible eviction. Short of rewiring every single individual in society, the best course of action would be to ameliorate the public perception of the disenfranchised classes by allowing them equal opportunities to climbing the social and economical ladder.

What the U.S. is facing is first and foremost an economical issue, in the sense that the economical divide between the rich and the poor is rapidly growing. Wealth distribution in the U.S. is utterly and completely f*cked and identity politics merely deflects from the real problem at hand, by dividing the poor and pitting them against each other. It is the old tale of the poor versus the rich, no matter who they are.

 
Last edited:

StrikeNinja24

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
1,448
93
0
People aren't being denied loans because they're black; it's because they don't have the credit history. What happened last time the banks gave out loans to people who weren't able to repay them?
You mean what they've started to do again immediately after the giant crash and have been doing ever since? And it was done on purpose? They got their free handouts from the government (thanks obama) and made their short term quotas. They don't have a problem selling false debt if it makes them money in the long run. And it will.

Ha, you think the banks learned any sort of lesson from that crash.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
First of all, let me say that I care about equality. I found both of these studies interesting and do not wish to diminish them in any way. I've studied both of them and I feel like you are jumping a bit to early conclusions. I'll mostly focus on the racial housing discrimination, but much of what I say can be applied to both studies. Let me explain:

Discrimination does not equal racism

Don't get me wrong, I find discrimination to be absolutely objectionable and I wish more would be done to counteract it, but you are committing a logical fallacy by equating discrimination with racism. Both of these studies examine discrimination in american society, but in no way do they pertain to racism. They manage to show that inequalities exist, but they don't explain why they exist. You merely assume it's because of racism, but that's not what these studies are claiming, like at all.

I don't doubt for a second that minorities are oftentimes discriminated against, when it comes to housing. The study you mentioned is pretty clear on that. But if you'd carefully read the study you could see that the problem isn't related to 'institutional racism'. Most of these inequalities are due to discriminatory practices on the individual level, namely the landlords:



I think that merely assuming that all landlords are racist is way too reductive and doesn't really do the issue justice:

First of all rental housing in the U.S. is mostly in the hands of landlords who are small owners who easily enter and leave the market and who are generally not subject to any training or licensing requirements. Individuals own more than half of all rental units. Half of individual rental property owners are fifty-five years old or over. These older owners and small property owners in general tend to run their own properties without employing professional agents. In that sense, we cannot say that this discrimination is institutionalized at all. In fact, due to anti-discrimination laws, institutions are much less likely to discriminate based on race as evidenced by the graph shown above.

When it comes to discrimination, we have to take into account the phenomenon of 'social stigmatization'. So we have to ask the question, why minorities and black people are often stigmatized when it comes to rental distribution. If you take a look at the study you posted, you can easily see exactly who is suffering from discrimination the most:



Exactly, as you can see it is black females. It is no mystery that black females belong to one of the least economically advantaged people in american society. Hence why they are also the most likely to be unable to pay their rent. Unfortunately, most landlords are aware of that fact. Hence why they are more reluctant to rent their space to black females because they don't want to deal with the hassle of possible evictions.

If you look at who is most likely to be evicted and why, this becomes even more apparent:



Considering that the majority of landlords are single individuals with no professional background who are running their own small property, we can safely assume that they are first and foremost interested in renting property to people who pose the least risk of being unable to pay the rent. Unfortunately, this attitude mostly discriminates against black single-parent females from a low educational background. I'm sure that some racist landlords still exist, especially considering their age, but it's more probable that the vast majority of them are more interested in risk-free rental. Especially considering that so many of them are single individuals with small properties who lack the necessary training to deal with nerve-wrecking evictions.



This becomes even more apparent when you consider that qualification plays a huge role when it comes to rental discrimination. Well qualified people, no matter their race, have much less hassle to find a place for rent because they tend to be more financially stable. Considering that many black people live in economically disfavored areas with bad educational infrastructure, they suffer severe disadvantages in that regard. From the HUD study in 2012:



The housing study doesn't take into account the landlord's race, hence why it's impossible to say whether the discrimination is due to racism. Discrimination can have many causes, not only racism. People in general have a built-in tendency to favor those who look like themselves over those who appear different. The concept of favoring “ingroup” members over outsiders is a natural phenomenon that affects all people equally, it's called 'in-group favoritism'. But much more importantly, within any given society, people have a strong tendency to prefer advantaged groups over disadvantaged groups, even if said persons are themselves disadvantaged:



This implies that white as well as black landlords are likely to discriminate against disadvantaged groups and/or give preferred treatment to advantaged groups. This kind of discrimination cannot be tackled by the mere notion of 'racism' as they pertain to psychological and behavioral mechanisms that are ingrained in every human being. Again from the HUD study mentioned above:



Does this still represent discrimination? Of course it does and I really hope that something can be done about it. But to just assume that 'racism' the main cause for these discriminatory behaviors is just way too shortsighted. Many of the reasons I mentioned above are first and foremost related to socioeconomic factors, mainly education and income. I'm aware that the U.S. has a specific racial history, nevertheless these economical factors are in-line with similar discriminatory practices in other countries all over the world.

According to the study I linked:



It should also be noted, that anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. (such as the fair housing act) have largely contributed to a vast decline in the most discriminatory practices. While I certainly don't want to diminish current discrimination, it should be noted that current legislation does indeed contribute to a positive development. What should be done to combat current discrimination is improving the economical status of disfavored classes, be it through education or job opportunities:



Assuming that anti-discriminatory laws are in place, social stigmatization of disenfranchised social classes in relation to their economical disadvantages are more often than not the main cause of inequalities. Landlords (no matter if they are white or black or whatever) are less likely to rent places if they perceive it to pose an increased risk of a possible eviction. Short of rewiring every single individual in society, the best course of action would be to ameliorate the public perception of the disenfranchised classes by allowing them equal opportunities to climbing the social and economical ladder.

What the U.S. is facing is first and foremost an economical issue, in the sense that the economical divide between the rich and the poor is rapidly growing. Wealth distribution in the U.S. is utterly and completely f*cked and identity politics merely deflects from the real problem at hand, by dividing the poor and pitting them against each other. It is the old tale of the poor versus the rich, no matter who they are.

Economic inequality is the most important thing to fix, but the unique inequalities still exist. This is some good information to add to your knowledge base as well: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,221
1,465
500
Economic inequality is the most important thing to fix, but the unique inequalities still exist. This is some good information to add to your knowledge base as well: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
This doesn't really address anything in the post you're quoting.

I like the pretty gifs but as the data in the article shows, with the gap disappearing when you only consider black women, it's hard to just cross your arms and shout "racism".

At what point does all this race baiting lead to a self fulfilling prophecy?
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,373
1,568
935
C
This doesn't really address anything in the post you're quoting.

I like the pretty gifs but as the data in the article shows, with the gap disappearing when you only consider black women, it's hard to just cross your arms and shout "racism".

At what point does all this race baiting lead to a self fulfilling prophecy?
This doesn't really address anything in the post you're quoting.

I like the pretty gifs but as the data in the article shows, with the gap disappearing when you only consider black women, it's hard to just cross your arms and shout "racism".

At what point does all this race baiting lead to a self fulfilling prophecy?
I wasn't countering his argument, I was hoping he'd read it to add to his general awarness.

It shows that white men are an outlier, and it says something about both gender and race.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
632
404
365
Jan 10, 2018
690
207
0
Liberal left makes little sense. Creating larger government, creating laws to obtain freedoms doesn't work. These things should be handled locally. Example in Houston I've had gold card my entire adult life, it handles all my medical dental prescription. Since Obama care I'm fine 300$ a year for not having another insurance. I live on $600 a month this is BS. We've had something way better than Obama care my whole life why couldn't a left leaning city offer that? Noo they have to handle it federally, make some guy who doesn't make jack shit in one state pay for the well being of people in another because their local officials they continue vote in don't give a shit.

And what is this carp "transgender lifestyle" what is that? Your sex has zero reason to be politicised. That's invasive as fuck all and a slippery slope to the authoritarian government you say you don't want but keep pushing for inspite of.
 

Beard of the Forest

The No. 1 cause of forest fires is trees.
Jan 16, 2018
145
469
330
Forest
Liberal left makes little sense. Creating larger government, creating laws to obtain freedoms doesn't work. These things should be handled locally. Example in Houston I've had gold card my entire adult life, it handles all my medical dental prescription. Since Obama care I'm fine 300$ a year for not having another insurance. I live on $600 a month this is BS. We've had something way better than Obama care my whole life why couldn't a left leaning city offer that? Noo they have to handle it federally, make some guy who doesn't make jack shit in one state pay for the well being of people in another because their local officials they continue vote in don't give a shit.

And what is this carp "transgender lifestyle" what is that? Your sex has zero reason to be politicised. That's invasive as fuck all and a slippery slope to the authoritarian government you say you don't want but keep pushing for inspite of.
$7200/yr has got to be below the medicaid threshold, that's living in poverty in the US. You should seriously consider applying. Even if you don't use the insurance (for whatever reason) at least you'd no longer be getting fined $300.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
632
404
365
I’ve been called nigger before on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, i think the UK has gone off the deep end.


Anyone that thinks it’s okay to charge someone for posting lyrics to a rap song that contains the word “
nigger in it can not call themselves liberal.


https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-43816921


Anyone that thinks it’s okay to jail someone for 5 months for training their dog to bark at the phrase Hail Hitler can not call themselves a liberal.


https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/mark-meechan-who-taught-dog-to-give-nazi-salute-tried-for-hate-crime-1.444146

Both are examples of clear cut authoritarianism, not liberalism.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
First of all, let me say that I care about equality. I found both of these studies interesting and do not wish to diminish them in any way. I've studied both of them and I feel like you are jumping a bit to early conclusions. I'll mostly focus on the racial housing discrimination, but much of what I say can be applied to both studies. Let me explain:

Discrimination does not equal racism

Don't get me wrong, I find discrimination to be absolutely objectionable and I wish more would be done to counteract it, but you are committing a logical fallacy by equating discrimination with racism. Both of these studies examine discrimination in american society, but in no way do they pertain to racism. They manage to show that inequalities exist, but they don't explain why they exist. You merely assume it's because of racism, but that's not what these studies are claiming, like at all.

I don't doubt for a second that minorities are oftentimes discriminated against, when it comes to housing. The study you mentioned is pretty clear on that. But if you'd carefully read the study you could see that the problem isn't related to 'institutional racism'. Most of these inequalities are due to discriminatory practices on the individual level, namely the landlords:



I think that merely assuming that all landlords are racist is way too reductive and doesn't really do the issue justice:

First of all rental housing in the U.S. is mostly in the hands of landlords who are small owners who easily enter and leave the market and who are generally not subject to any training or licensing requirements. Individuals own more than half of all rental units. Half of individual rental property owners are fifty-five years old or over. These older owners and small property owners in general tend to run their own properties without employing professional agents. In that sense, we cannot say that this discrimination is institutionalized at all. In fact, due to anti-discrimination laws, institutions are much less likely to discriminate based on race as evidenced by the graph shown above.

When it comes to discrimination, we have to take into account the phenomenon of 'social stigmatization'. So we have to ask the question, why minorities and black people are often stigmatized when it comes to rental distribution. If you take a look at the study you posted, you can easily see exactly who is suffering from discrimination the most:



Exactly, as you can see it is black females. It is no mystery that black females belong to one of the least economically advantaged people in american society. Hence why they are also the most likely to be unable to pay their rent. Unfortunately, most landlords are aware of that fact. Hence why they are more reluctant to rent their space to black females because they don't want to deal with the hassle of possible evictions.

If you look at who is most likely to be evicted and why, this becomes even more apparent:



Considering that the majority of landlords are single individuals with no professional background who are running their own small property, we can safely assume that they are first and foremost interested in renting property to people who pose the least risk of being unable to pay the rent. Unfortunately, this attitude mostly discriminates against black single-parent females from a low educational background. I'm sure that some racist landlords still exist, especially considering their age, but it's more probable that the vast majority of them are more interested in risk-free rental. Especially considering that so many of them are single individuals with small properties who lack the necessary training to deal with nerve-wrecking evictions.



This becomes even more apparent when you consider that qualification plays a huge role when it comes to rental discrimination. Well qualified people, no matter their race, have much less hassle to find a place for rent because they tend to be more financially stable. Considering that many black people live in economically disfavored areas with bad educational infrastructure, they suffer severe disadvantages in that regard. From the HUD study in 2012:



The housing study doesn't take into account the landlord's race, hence why it's impossible to say whether the discrimination is due to racism. Discrimination can have many causes, not only racism. People in general have a built-in tendency to favor those who look like themselves over those who appear different. The concept of favoring “ingroup” members over outsiders is a natural phenomenon that affects all people equally, it's called 'in-group favoritism'. But much more importantly, within any given society, people have a strong tendency to prefer advantaged groups over disadvantaged groups, even if said persons are themselves disadvantaged:



This implies that white as well as black landlords are likely to discriminate against disadvantaged groups and/or give preferred treatment to advantaged groups. This kind of discrimination cannot be tackled by the mere notion of 'racism' as they pertain to psychological and behavioral mechanisms that are ingrained in every human being. Again from the HUD study mentioned above:



Does this still represent discrimination? Of course it does and I really hope that something can be done about it. But to just assume that 'racism' the main cause for these discriminatory behaviors is just way too shortsighted. Many of the reasons I mentioned above are first and foremost related to socioeconomic factors, mainly education and income. I'm aware that the U.S. has a specific racial history, nevertheless these economical factors are in-line with similar discriminatory practices in other countries all over the world.

According to the study I linked:



It should also be noted, that anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. (such as the fair housing act) have largely contributed to a vast decline in the most discriminatory practices. While I certainly don't want to diminish current discrimination, it should be noted that current legislation does indeed contribute to a positive development. What should be done to combat current discrimination is improving the economical status of disfavored classes, be it through education or job opportunities:



Assuming that anti-discriminatory laws are in place, social stigmatization of disenfranchised social classes in relation to their economical disadvantages are more often than not the main cause of inequalities. Landlords (no matter if they are white or black or whatever) are less likely to rent places if they perceive it to pose an increased risk of a possible eviction. Short of rewiring every single individual in society, the best course of action would be to ameliorate the public perception of the disenfranchised classes by allowing them equal opportunities to climbing the social and economical ladder.

What the U.S. is facing is first and foremost an economical issue, in the sense that the economical divide between the rich and the poor is rapidly growing. Wealth distribution in the U.S. is utterly and completely f*cked and identity politics merely deflects from the real problem at hand, by dividing the poor and pitting them against each other. It is the old tale of the poor versus the rich, no matter who they are.

1) While I applaud your post by going into detail you have both hit the nail on the head and missed the point.

Income inequality is one of the singular most destructive forces in the US and globally.
In the case of the US access to income and education were racially segregated and controlled.
As we know with wealth, the more you have, the more quickly you will acquire it. Thus a group which has been denied wealth in the past will disproportionate have less wealth and continually fall behind as the wealth gap increases.
You are referencing many current trends without the context of historical black poverty and education which led to less wealth and less accumulation of wealth in modern times.

Here's a good chart.



So yes while we can talk about the individual discrimination which occurs, lower wealth due to practices such as housing and mortgage discrimination, education and other issues dating back to 55 years ago an incredibly difficult hurdle to overcome. Basically you cannot impoverish, deny resources and education, and withing the span of less than a lifetime expect millions of people from community riddled with drugs, violence, and discrimination to sudden have the same wealth and success rates.
 

Cleared_Hot

Member
Feb 25, 2018
255
136
190
Great thread, the response from Era was appalling.

Discussion should always be an option.
The amazing thing about that forum is they've convinced thmselves neigaf was hijacked by the ominous alt-righy... When jn reality they all were throwing bitch fits whenever anyone had the slightest disagreement
 

DryvBy

Member
May 10, 2009
10,694
919
970
USA
www.youtube.com
This Kanye West stuff is crazy and a good example of this. He's mental because he supports Trump. What a bubble some of these deranged people live in. Not all left wing people are crazy, but the groups that can't enjoy music because the politics disagree? Heck, if that's all it took, Ramones would be the only band I could stomach.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,304
5,181
485
This Kanye West stuff is crazy and a good example of this. He's mental because he supports Trump. What a bubble some of these deranged people live in. Not all left wing people are crazy, but the groups that can't enjoy music because the politics disagree? Heck, if that's all it took, Ramones would be the only band I could stomach.
We have people call someone a racist alt-right supporter because they listened to a heavy metal band that doesn't push their politics in their music (Daniel Vavre). Some people are insane and look to be offended, going to great lengths reaching for things to be offended about.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,547
1,226
290
Income inequality is one of the singular most destructive forces in the US and globally.
In the case of the US access to income and education were racially segregated and controlled.
As we know with wealth, the more you have, the more quickly you will acquire it. Thus a group which has been denied wealth in the past will disproportionate have less wealth and continually fall behind as the wealth gap increases.
You are referencing many current trends without the context of historical black poverty and education which led to less wealth and less accumulation of wealth in modern times.
What are the greatest causes of income inequality and destruction of the middle class?
Globalism.
Bad Trade deals.
The gutting of our manufacturing industry.
Illegal immigration (actually high levels of immigration helps depress wages overall)

All problems that Donald Trump is trying to fix, but for some reason the people who claim to want to help blacks won't let him. Why not at least let him try? Let's face it you're not going to "fix" racism in this country by just telling everyone not to be racist. Why not try some more practical solutions?
 
Last edited: