Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#402 Aug 30 2016 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Because people are more biased than you seem to think.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#403 Aug 30 2016 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I get that you're saying that. You've said it multiple times. Do you get that this response doesn't in any way actually address what I'm talking about?
You asked for the real problem. That is the real problem. You can never solve the *whole* problem if you're only looking at part of it.


Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that you can't assume that if a given percentage of one group is caught committing robberies is higher than another group you cannot assume that unfair methods were used to catch them. You're using the skewed ratio as proof of racial bias by the cops. But it could be something as simple as... oh I don't know... the well documented fact that a higher percentage of black people actually do commit criminal acts. Instead of blaming the cops, or assuming they must be biased in their actions, maybe we should look at why blacks are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than whites.

No amount of "fixing" the behavior of the cops fixes the much more problematic underlying issue. Looking at why blacks commit crime at a higher rate does at least move us in the direction of fixing that underlying issue. And my opinion is that it's the poverty rate difference that is the root cause, so we should be focusing on that problem. I'm not sure why that's the wrong way to go in your mind.
So, how the robbers were caught is relevant in catching robbers? It's either or.


Gbaji wrote:
Unless I want to know what you mean by "institutionalized favoritism". Which, I do. You're the one who keeps using the phrase. I don't think it's unfair for me to ask what you mean when you say it.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes. That's what I said. What's funny is that you keep repeating what you said, and what I said, but you're not actually answering my question. Let's not forget that we're discussing differences in socio-economic condition by race. When you declare that it's a combination of personal actions and institutionalized favoritism, it's reasonable for me to assume you mean institutionalized racism and/or racial bias/discrimination. But whenever I say "is this what you mean?", so that I'm not committing a straw man argument, you avoid answering. I'm kinda baffled by your behavior here.
As I defined, institutional favoritism does not necessarily mean racial bias or racial discrimination. You keep saying that to support your talking points. Certain actions can just have disproportional impact to various demographics, that could include race. That does not mean a bunch of racists decided to create processes to specifically target a particular demographic .


Gbaji wrote:

And if the deciding factor in that was the skin color of the woman,
It's not, hence the example. You're just proving my point by trying to justify every example of institutionalized favoritism instead of just accepting it as notable problem in our society.





Edited, Aug 31st 2016 1:25pm by Almalieque
#404 Aug 31 2016 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm sure it didn't hurt any, but I wouldn't expect to see a large improvement in overall welfare. Again, it's not like people stopped being racist, or acting in a manner that disadvantaged black people, we just made the most overt forms of discrimination illegal.


Well, first off, I think that the combination of making those activities illegal and the pretty massive social campaign to reinforce in the minds of subsequent generations the absolute moral wrongness of racism, did a heck of a lot to stop people being racist. Or maybe the more correct way of putting it isn't that existing racists stopped being so (cause that's pretty unlikely) but that the percentage of racists in each successive generation since then has dropped significantly. Maybe I'm from some rare place in the country where this happened, but I remember growing up that using a racially oriented term, or making a racially oriented joke, garnered the same kind of instantly negative response from everyone in my family and everyone we knew that you might get as a kid for swearing, or getting into a fight, or whatever.

Maybe it's different in the deep south or something, but my admittedly limited experience is that this was a similar experience for most (honestly, I feel like it's "all", but I don't want to talk in absolutes here) of the white people I've met in my life. There was almost a crusade in the 60s and 70s to stamp out that sort of behavior. It was viewed as just plain wrong. Period. No discussion. In fact, one of the more painful realizations in my life was that while white kids like me were being taught that there was no place for racism or racial bias and it was wrong to view or treat people differently based on the color of their skin, a heck of a lot of the black kids I knew in school grew up being taught that white people were the enemy, and were all racist (and even when they insisted they weren't, they really were because they were white and enjoyed the benefits of being white and were thus just deluding themselves while taking advantage of a system that benefited them because of their skin color), and were oppressors, and that they should always keep an eye out for us, and not trust us, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I honestly believe that, at least among the white population of the US, actual racism is pretty darn rare. It's certainly massively less prevalent and massively less likely to create actual statistically significant outcome differences than it was 50 years ago. Call me an optimist on this issue, but I think we've made a ton of progress on this front. But at the same time, it seems like the perception of racism, and the bar for what will be called racism just keeps changing. It really does seem less like rampant racism causing problems, and a lot more like people needing to keep the fear and hatred running so that their social narrative will keep working.

Quote:
You still have have plenty of ways to discriminate that aren't technically against the law, or at least are nearly impossible to prove. Those first steps were more akin to treating symptoms than an actual cure.


I disagree. The presence of overt mechanisms in the system served to reinforce the idea that racism and racial bias were acceptable. Their removal, in a pretty spectacular fashion, sent a very strong message in the opposite direction. You form your opinions based on the rules of the world around you. When those rules consistently and strongly say that racism is wrong and discrimination is wrong, it's going to have a massive effect on the opinions of each generation that grows up in that environment. It does a lot more than just treat symptoms. It prevents the ideology from taking root in the first place.

Also, the point about it being nearly impossible to prove is part of my own argument. If you can't prove it, then it becomes something you can never measure, and never know if you're making progress. It also becomes a perfect thing to use as a flash point for generating anger, since it can also never be proved to not exist. You can always point at it and claim it's responsible. Which makes it problematic in this context.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
And when we add in decades of processes that look for signs of the kind of "quiet racism" that you're talking about and either go after those who engage in such things, or create (at least in theory) counter balancing effects, we should have seen an even more dramatic improvement. But we haven't.
What kinds of counter-balancing effects are you referring to?


Decades of affirmative action programs, hiring quotas, school busing, forced desegregation, etc. While I'm not a fan of all those things, they were used and did have an effect on the sociological makeup of the country. They should have had at least some amount of lasting effect, and in conjunction with all the other factors I spoke about, we should be seeing dramatically closer statistical outcomes today. Which leads us to the question of why we aren't.

Quote:
I think a 50/50 mix of black/white was what was listed in one of the papers I linked earlier? The closer to that ratio, the more appealing the neighborhood was. The big factor for not wanting to move into a white community was fear. Which brings about the interesting point, is that you can probably find fear down in the roots of a lot of the problems if you dig deep enough, and yes it does come from both sides. So where does that get us? You can't force people out of their comfort zone, you can't make them socialize with other races, you can't make them treat other races equally, so the problem perpetuates. Fear separates people, the lack of contact breeds ignorance, and the ignorance begets harmful actions.


Yeah. Which brings up the point I raised above. Is the fear coming from white people not wanting black people to live in their neighborhoods? Or black people, raised with the anti-white teachings I spoke of, fearing living in a white neighborhood? When you have a group of people within which a largish percentage have been barraged with language telling them that white people can't be trusted, that they'll be profiled, that they'll be treated as criminals, that they'll never be accepted, that they'll be harassed, etc, are we at all surprised when so many of them choose to live within majority black neighborhoods? But how much of that fear is unfounded (I think a very large amount). And how much of that fear actually just serves to perpetuate the divide between us.

Again, I just have a hard time letting go of the perception that 2-3 generations of white kids were taught to ignore race, treat everyone the same, give everyone an equal shot, judge on the content of character and not the color of skin, while the black kids were taught to fear and hate us, but we're supposed to look for white racism as the cause of the problem? And yeah, I see BLM as just another reinforcement of that same terrible message. As long as groups like that keep repeating garbage like that, generations of blacks will continue to grow up innately fearing white people, and will choose not to associate with whites, or make any effort to meet us halfway on this issue. And as long as that happens, the conditions of poverty that afflict black people in this country will continue, and their own perception of "racism" as the cause will continue to be perpetuated. And the cycle will just continue.

Quote:
Which, isn't going to get an argument from me. Welfare style programs certainly have their place, but don't really address the type of problem were talking about here. You can give someone food to keep them from starving, but there isn't really anything simple you can hand out to someone to make them successful. The problem becomes more nuanced at that point, and not something you can easily wrap a political slogan around.


Yeah. As I've said before, this is a whole topic in itself. I bring it up only as a counterpoint to what I consider to be at the least a wasted effort by groups following the BLM narrative, and almost certainly a negative result. The problems of racially disparate outcomes are less about actions at this point and more about perceptions. But BLM just reinforces the very perceptions that keeps this problem from being solved. What needs to happen is for people to stop thinking of themselves as a skin color and thinking of themselves as part of a large whole. BLM focuses on the skin color. That's never going to help things IMO. It's only going to make them worse.

Quote:
Because people are more biased than you seem to think. They'll overwhelmingly prefer to interact with members of their own race, and will feel uncomfortable if they're repeatedly forced outside of that bubble. Forcing people into an uncomfortable situation is bad for your business.


You mean "human"? Why do we even think of people with different skin color as being of a different race? Do you see how perpetuation of the language itself can be a large part of the problem here? You can never fix that as long as we have an entire "side" of our political landscape more or less banking on racial division. You want to solve the issue of racial bias? Stop talking about race. Don't mention someone's skin color. Stop collecting stats about people by race. Stop asking them to fill it out on a form. Stop tailoring services to them based on race. Stop tailoring messages based on race. Stop pandering to race in politics.

Imagine a generation of kids who've never heard the word "race" used in the context of skin color. Imagine them never hearing skin color used in any way as a means of separating people, or judging people, or measuring success, or dividing people. They would have no reason to think that someone with a different skin color is in any way different (except for skin color). It would be like hair or eye color. Mentioned as part of a description, but somewhat ludicrous to suggest as being a factor that would or should result in any kind of mass discrimination.

Can you imagine that? I know this sounds silly, but it could literally be that simple. You can't fix what people believe today, but you can certainly influence the beliefs of future generations. What BLM is doing is going in the wrong direction on this IMO.

Quote:
Hmmm, I don't think either of those definitions are what we're looking for as a root of a problem here. Don't know what you want to call it but something closer to: an action that has an unequal effect of the welfare of members of different races.


But if the action itself isn't targeted at race, then it should not be a problem. It's only a problem because we choose to measure race in the context of something that shouldn't have anything to do with it. If police stops occur at a higher rate in a poor high crime neighborhood then what impact that has by race should be irrelevant. It's a result of the crime rate, not the skin color of those living there. It only appears to be if you choose to look at people and measure them based on their skin color. Why should people's skin color even be a factor we use here?

Quote:
We can talk about indirect or direct effects, fear, ignorance and other things along those lines to expand on the problem. But in general people consistently acting in a way that disadvantages, or at least doesn't equally benefit, members of another race can perpetuate disparity even without malice intentions.



Ok. But does the message of BLM increase or decrease that fear and ignorance? I think it increases it. Which is why it's not helpful. They're just adding to the problem.

Quote:
Get past that and then you're at the point where you have to ask yourself whether equal opportunity is enough, or whether equal prosperity is the goal. Which, ugh, is a whole different can of worms...


Yeah. A big can of worms. As my "give a man a fish and he'll never learn to fish for himself" example shows, the very attempt to equalize prosperity will most likely result in less equal base conditions over time, in the exact opposite direction you wanted to go. It's why I mentioned that efforts to counter balance things only work "in theory". It's a theory I happen to believe is 100% wrong. You can't give people actual prosperity. They have to earn it. But when you teach people that prosperity can be given to them, if only those who currently have it weren't cruel and withholding it from them, you aren't helping them. You're just giving them one more reason not to expend the effort required to earn it for themselves.


Let me just leave this here. Tell me what you think of it, and whether you think it's helpful or hurtful for the purpose of ending racism:

Quote:
Statement of Principles

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.


I'll give you one guess where this came from.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#405 Aug 31 2016 at 11:49 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,212 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Statement of Principles

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
I'll give you one guess where this came from.
1st Google hit.

(Using "Statement of Principles

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community " )

Is that the one you meant?


Edited, Aug 31st 2016 11:57pm by Bijou

Edited, Aug 31st 2016 11:59pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#406 Sep 01 2016 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, replacing "white" for "black", it's from Jeremiah Wright's church that Obama went to back in the day. Gbaji and other conservatives still can't get past the fact that Wright wasn't a silver bullet to stop the scary black man from becoming president.

"But how is Commitment to the Black Community different from Commitment to the White Community??" is pretty much another version of "How come there's no White History Month, huh?? And where's the White Entertainment Network or the campus White Student Union!?"

"We shouldn't see color!" is another version of the same: "I'm already comfortable and kind of sick of having to hear about black people so let's ignore the systemic issues affecting these communities and stop taking actions designed to protect or assist them under the lofty guise of 'we're all just humans'."

Edited, Sep 1st 2016 11:51am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#407 Sep 01 2016 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,405 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And where's the White Entertainment Network [...] !?"
I'm pretty sure CMT counts.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#408 Sep 01 2016 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I'm from some rare place in the country where this happened, but I remember growing up that using a racially oriented term, or making a racially oriented joke, garnered the same kind of instantly negative response from everyone in my family and everyone we knew that you might get as a kid for swearing, or getting into a fight, or whatever.
Dunno, you're west coast though right? Things aren't really the same out here. Not to say we don't have our issues with it, but it's not the same thing as...

gbaji wrote:
Maybe it's different in the deep south or something,
Well that, to start with.

We generally have more problems with ignorance out West, as smaller black populations tend to mean less opportunities for exposure. We more likely to cause inadvertent harm, but it'd be foolish to presume that clears us of responsibility for our actions.

gbaji wrote:
Decades of affirmative action programs, hiring quotas, school busing, forced desegregation, etc. While I'm not a fan of all those things, they were used and did have an effect on the sociological makeup of the country. They should have had at least some amount of lasting effect, and in conjunction with all the other factors I spoke about, we should be seeing dramatically closer statistical outcomes today. Which leads us to the question of why we aren't.
Because those programs don't really work as well as hoped. Thought we talked about that already? It a bit of a 'cart-before-the-horse' kind of problem. The racial mix it was creating was more desirable, but without true integration into a different social circle the whole thing falls apart. The hope is that at least the exposure helps break down barriers and over time the problem lessens, but that's obviously not happening quickly, if at all. Again, this comes back to the whole thing about you can't force people to socialize with people they don't want to.

gbaji wrote:
Is the fear coming from white people not wanting black people to live in their neighborhoods? Or black people, raised with the anti-white teachings I spoke of, fearing living in a white neighborhood?
I'll toss you a bone and cut out the unnecessary part. Smiley: tongue

Anyway, the answer is yes to both. Fear is a universal problem, and yes I agree it tends to make problems worse, perpetuate divides, etc.

gbaji wrote:
or make any effort to meet us halfway on this issue.
I think you're underestimating the amount of effort that goes into conforming to the white norms, values, etc. that are commonplace in the country. White people have a long way to go before they're meeting people halfway here. Not to excuse behavior that perpetuates negative stereotypes, of course, we certainly don't need that. But there are plenty of cases, like in Baltimore currently, where there's evidence of racism, and you can't expect people not to protest against that, or be upset by it.

Quote:
Why do we even think of people with different skin color as being of a different race?
Historical reasons mostly, but that's really not what you're getting at I'd imagine. Even if you don't expose children to racial terms, etc. They're still going to prefer to hang out with people that look like them, or look like their relatives, etc. There's very little we can do about it other than un-train the behavior. Kids pick up on these differences without even having words for them. To go back...

Quote:
You mean "human"?
Basically, yes. We need people to stop acting in ways that are instinctual to them. Overcoming human nature is a challenge that isn't going to go away quickly.

Quote:
Stop talking about race. Don't mention someone's skin color.
You can't stop people from noticing other people are different.

Quote:
Imagine a generation of kids who've never heard the word "race" used in the context of skin color.
I know we hate anecdotes here, but we've never mentioned race in regards to skin color, despite being a multi-racial family (White/Asian in this case). That doesn't stop my kids from playing preferentially socializing with people that look more like them. Should I be concerned that they'll seek out other kids with dark hair and eyes and similar skin tones on the playground and socialize more with them? Don't know, but the idea the behavior is going to go away on it's own seems a bit far-fetched. Interacting with other who are most similar to you generally makes sense to be selected for in a biological setting (there have been several studies to this degree if you'd like me to dig them up for you). That behavior is well ingrained in us, and like other forms of nepotism takes effort to work against and overcome as a society.

Quote:
But if the action itself isn't targeted at race, then it should not be a problem.
Why wouldn't it be a problem? Unintended consequences of our actions are something we still have to deal with. Just because you didn't mean for it to happen doesn't mean you didn't hurt someone else.

Quote:
Why should people's skin color even be a factor we use here?
Because historically people have discriminated on the basis of race, and despite our best efforts it continues today. Sure we've made strides as a society, but that doesn't mean we're done working out the problems yet. That said it's a fairly universal principal that doesn't necessarily need to include race in it. Anytime an action unfairly disadvantages a group of people you could invoke the same argument.

Quote:
Let me just leave this here. Tell me what you think of it, and whether you think it's helpful or hurtful for the purpose of ending racism:
Well I see everyone beat me to it. Smiley: lol

Bet nonetheless I don't really see it has helpful or beneficial if that answers the question, not that it is necessarily harmful either. There's something to be said for the preservation of beliefs and cultural, but the tipping point comes once the beliefs and culture causes harm to another set of beliefs and culture. As written it's bound to be controversial at the very least.

Edited, Sep 1st 2016 9:53am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#409 Sep 01 2016 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
And where's the White Entertainment Network [...] !?"
I'm pretty sure CMT counts.
Hey now, every generation of country music singers has a token black guy. Doesn't that count? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#410 Sep 01 2016 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"But how is Commitment to the Black Community different from Commitment to the White Community??" is pretty much another version of "How come there's no White History Month, huh?? And where's the White Entertainment Network or the campus White Student Union!?"

"We shouldn't see color!" is another version of the same: "I'm already comfortable and kind of sick of having to hear about black people so let's ignore the systemic issues affecting these communities and stop taking actions designed to protect or assist them under the lofty guise of 'we're all just humans'.


I think your problem is that you are projecting your own viewpoint that this is some kind of "two wrongs make a right" argument. It's not. We're not arguing that since there's a black history month, there should also be a white history month, or that because it's ok for black churches to publicly state these kinds of things that it should be ok for white churches (are there even such things?) to do the same. That's your own assumption that the whole thing's being led by some white supremacists desiring to bring back the good old days or some such nonsense. The actual argument is that this is wrong, period. Doesn't matter what skin color you are. Doesn't matter what skin color you're supporting or opposing. It's just plain wrong and harmful to society.

The point I'm making with this in this thread is that when we look at issues of race, one of the key elements that comes up (and came up here) is the racial divide. The issue of people of different skin colors not knowing each other well enough, not interacting with each other, or living in each others communities so as to even get the chance to do so. This leads to alienation, fear, and in some cases, hatred. The question is about where this divide is coming from though. And I think it's pretty abundantly clear that the primary source of that divide isn't coming from white people, but from the very black community organizers, church leaders, and frankly black parents.

When you teach your children that it's *wrong* to associate with whites, or to adopt "white values", or anything that isn't "black", you're adding to that divide. When you isolate yourself by skin color in this manner, why be surprised that alienation results? We were discussing why blacks congregate in such racially divided communities. The classic speculation is that it must be white racists forcing them to live separate from everyone else, but the evidence just doesn't support that idea. I don't know why black leaders have chosen to push this ideology on black citizens in the US, but they have. And as a white person, I can't fix this.

Which is why it becomes even more infuriating when the proposed source of the problem of black social stats always seems to leap to "white racism". When the finger is pointed at which race "doesn't understand the other", it's always pointed at white people. But the reality is that a far higher percentage of white people live in neighborhoods with black neighbors than the other way around. There's usually a small percentage of blacks that we interact with, but that's not because we're choosing to push out black people, but because most black people choose not to live with us. We're sitting here, waiting for blacks to join us, and they're insisting on staying "over there". And if we try to live in their neighborhoods? We're subject to constant victimization, verbal harassment, and sometimes violence. Just because we're different.

But it's the white population that is the problem here? Seriously? How about instead of spending so much time looking for the spec of racism among the white population we maybe instead look at the freaking plank that exists among many in the so called "black community". There's your problem right there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#411 Sep 01 2016 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,296 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think your problem is that you are projecting your own viewpoint that this is some kind of "two wrongs make a right" argument.


I think your problem is that you're wrong. Smiley: wink

gbaji wrote:
We were discussing why blacks congregate in such racially divided communities


A sense of safety and security? Whether that is good or bad, I will make the guess that that is the main reason. The same reason that white folks want to live in gated communities in white neighborhoods.

gbaji wrote:
But it's the white population that is the problem here?


They have more privileges. And more opportunities to do both good and bad. I don't think that it is unfair for them to shoulder a portion of the burden, maybe even the majority.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#412 Sep 02 2016 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
gbaji wrote:
But it's the white population that is the problem here?
Just the portion that's like you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#413 Sep 02 2016 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But it's the white population that is the problem here? Seriously?

Let's see if your next remark shows any sort of self-reflection or just knee-jerk blame shifting and insistence that you're not at all to fault...
Quote:
How about instead of spending so much time looking for the spec of racism among the white population we maybe instead look at the freaking plank that exists among many in the so called "black community". There's your problem right there.

There it is, right there. Great job.
Quote:
We're not arguing that since there's a black history month, there should also be a white history month, or that because it's ok for black churches to publicly state these kinds of things that it should be ok for white churches (are there even such things?) to do the same

This is the blindness people talk about. You say "We're not saying there should be a White History Month, there just shouldn't be a Black History Month" because you're blind to the fact that "White History Month" is the default in America. White entertainment is the default. White culture is the default. Saying that there shouldn't a Black History Month is, in essence, saying "We should have White History Month twelve months out of the year instead of just eleven." Likewise, you asking "are there really such things as white churches?" demonstrates a tremendous blindness to American culture.

Maybe next time you want to talk race, you can have Trump's campaign team work up some prepared answers.


Edited, Sep 2nd 2016 10:01am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#414 Sep 04 2016 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
StupidMonkey wrote:
I think your problem is that you're wrong
His problem is that he doesn't actually want to solve the problem.
#415 Sep 04 2016 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,885 posts
I've missed a lot of this thread, so ignore me if it's been said before, but gbaji seems to have the typical white person's flawed understanding of racism. To many white people, racism is specific, individual, identifiable, conscious acts of clear injustice. Calling someone a ****** is racism. Denying someone service and plainly saying "we don't serve black people here" is racism. Burning a cross in front of a home or lynching someone and stating you did so because they were black is racism. But that's about all it is to some people.

What most white people don't seem to understand is that racism is also a nebulous cloud of systemic prejudices that have often minor and widespread consequences. Was a person declined for being black? We have results that show black sounding names on resume get less call backs than white names. I doubt all the participants in those studies are card carrying klan members, or even think they have racial biases. But it doesn't matter.

It's not a few big events, but a lot of little ones. And many of those pile on top of each other. A cop who arrests slightly disproportionately more black people funnels people into a court system where the jury may convict slightly disproportionately more black people into a prison system that rehabilitates disproportionately slightly fewer black people.
#416 Sep 05 2016 at 5:55 AM Rating: Good
***
1,050 posts
Nice whitesplainin there, Allegory.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#417 Sep 06 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
CHICAGO (CBS) wrote:
Thirteen people were killed and at least 52 others, including a pregnant woman, were wounded in shootings across Chicago over Labor Day weekend, according to Chicago Police.

The latest homicide happened about 10:45 p.m. Monday in the East Garfield Park neighborhood on the West Side. A group was standing on the sidewalk in the 2700 block of West Lexington when someone in a silver minivan opened fire, police said. A 22-year-old man was shot in the chest and taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Another 22-year-old man suffered gunshot wounds to the chest and thigh and was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was also pronounced dead.

Three other people were also shot and taken to Mount Sinai, police said. A 16-year-old boy was shot in the chest and listed in critical condition; a 17-year-old boy suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and was seriously wounded; and a 20-year-old man was shot in the right arm and buttocks and was also listed in serious condition.

Earlier Monday evening, two men were killed in a shooting near Ogden Park in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side. About 7:15 p.m., a 47-year-old man was walking his dog in the 1200 block of West Marquette when someone in a vehicle started shooting, striking him in the chest, police said. The shots also struck a 24-year-old man in the chest as he ran away from the gunfire. Both men were taken to Stroger Hospital, where they later died, police said. It was unclear if either of the victims were intended targets.

The Cook County medical examiner’s office did not immediately confirm those fatalities early Tuesday.

About 30 minutes earlier in the same neighborhood, a light-colored car pulled up to a man in the 900 block of West 58th Street about 6:45 p.m., and someone inside it shot him in the back. The man, thought to be between 18 and 25, was taken to St. Bernard Hospital, where he later died, police said. Authorities have not released his name.

About 4 p.m. in Back of the Yards on the South Side, three people in a white van pulled up to a 44-year-old man driving in the 4500 block of South Hermitage and started harassing him, police said. When the man kept driving away, one of the van’s passengers opened fire, striking the 44-year-old in the head, neck and back, police said. His vehicle then crashed into three other vehicles. He was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he later died, police said. His name has not been released.

Hours earlier in the Brighton Park neighborhood on the Southwest Side, the roommates of a 22-year-old Enrique D. Morales found him dead about 1:30 p.m. on their driveway in the 4500 block of South Whipple, according to police and the medical examiner’s office. Morales was shot in the chest and was pronounced dead at the scene at 1:45 p.m. Area Central detectives were conducting a homicide investigation.

Monday morning, a man was killed and another wounded in more Englewood violence. David Baldwin, 24, was shot in the head about 9:30 a.m. in the 6800 block of South Emerald and taken to Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he died at 2:58 p.m., authorities said. He lived in the 1100 block of West 67th Street. Another man, 26, was shot in the thigh and grazed across the face. His condition was stabilized at Stroger Hospital, but he was uncooperative with investigators, police said.

About 6:20 a.m. in the South Shore neighborhood, someone walked up to an 80-year-old man in the 2800 block of East 77th Place, exchanged words with the elderly man and then shot him in the face. He died at the scene, according to police, who said the shooter was arrested with charges pending Monday night. The 80-year-old man’s name has not been released.

Late Sunday in the same neighborhood, two gunmen walked up to a 17-year-old boy about 10:30 p.m. in the 7800 block of South Cornell and shot him in the back. The teen was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where he later died, police said. His name has not been released.

Just after 6 p.m. Sunday, officers responding to a call of more Back of the Yards neighborhood gunfire in the 5200 block of South Sangamon found a 19-year-old man shot multiple times. He was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said. His name has not been released.

Less than an hour earlier, a 45-year-old man was killed and a 27-year-old wounded in another Englewood shooting. Robert L. Porter Jr. and the younger man were unloading boxes in an alley in the 6700 block of South Green when someone dressed in black walked up and fired shots, authorities said. Porter, of the 7300 block of South Green, was shot across the torso and chest and taken to Christ Medical Center, where he died at 6:02 p.m. The other man was taken to the same hospital in serious condition with wounds to the chest, back and wrist, police said.

The holiday weekend’s first fatal shooting happened early Sunday in the Archer Heights neighborhood on the Southwest Side. Juan Pita-Rosas, 32, was standing in an alley with a 22-year-old man shortly after midnight in the 4800 block of South Kildare when they heard gunfire and both felt pain, authorities said. Pita-Rosas, who lived in the 4700 block of South Springfield, was shot in the head and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:05 a.m. The younger man suffered gunshot wounds to the arm and chest and later showed up at Holy Cross Hospital in serious condition.

The latest nonfatal attack happened about 3 a.m. Tuesday in the West Englewood neighborhood on the South Side. A 20-year-old man was walking down the street in the 6300 block of South Winchester when he heard gunshots and realized he’d been struck, police said. He suffered a gunshot wound to the back and was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where his condition was stabilized. A police source said the man is gang affiliated.

About 3:15 p.m., a 23-year-old pregnant woman and 25 year-old man were shot on a porch in the 900 block of West 53rd Street when someone walked up and opened fire, hitting her in the abdomen and him in the back, police said. They were taken to Stroger Hospital, where the woman was listed in serious condition and the man critical. Family members said the woman was due to deliver her first baby boy at the end of September.

At least 43 more people were wounded in shootings across Chicago between 9 p.m. Friday and 2:30 a.m. Tuesday. Last year, 54 people were shot—8 fatally—over Labor Day weekend.
All I did different for Labor Day was hit a golf ball as far as I could. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#418 Sep 06 2016 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
All I did different for Labor Day was hit a golf ball as far as I could. Smiley: frown
How far did it go? And did you manage to break any windows?

I got to be reminded of why I dislike RV parks.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#419 Sep 06 2016 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
How far did it go?
I can pretty much Happy Gilmore the thing passed the 250 yard marker, and once in a while 300 if the wind is right. I can't even stand golf, but there's something amusing about hitting a ball as far as possible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#420 Sep 06 2016 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
How far did it go?
I can pretty much Happy Gilmore the thing passed the 250 yard marker, and once in a while 300 if the wind is right. I can't even stand golf, but there's something amusing about hitting a ball as far as possible.

It's the same as hitting anything as far as possible. Golf ball...baseball...child...
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#421 Sep 07 2016 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
Kids don't go as far. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#422 Sep 07 2016 at 9:42 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,507 posts
You can't just hit a kid with a club or a bat. You need specialized equipment, like a Civil War cannon.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#423 Sep 15 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
******
49,405 posts
Wyoming wrote:
A 77-year-old man who shot three people, killing one, at the senior apartment complex where he lived had grown distant recently and had been angry about frequent poker games in the building's common area, according to people who knew him.

One person died at the Heritage Court Apartments and two others were wounded. Larry Rosenberg, the shooter, killed himself as police closed in on him in a neighborhood about a mile away, Cheyenne police said.

Mary Eastman, 80, said Rosenberg handed her a letter as she headed out to shop the morning of the shooting. Eastman said she left the letter in her apartment and didn't read it until later -- after she returned to find the building a crime scene.

Police eventually let her back in to get her dog.

"His problem really was that damned poker gambling. That was it. That was all he complained about," Eastman said of what Rosenberg wrote.

She said police had the letter. Cheyenne Police Department spokesman Dan Long said Wednesday he couldn't immediately confirm that statement.

But Eastman said Rosenberg wasn't the only person with concerns about poker games held three days a week in the common area. The issue came up at a recent meeting at which residents told the apartment complex managers about any concerns they had, she said.

"Sunday, Monday and then Wednesday," Eastman said. "That's too much. To haul them people in we don't even know. We don't want to know them. No, we don't. They're taking up our space. Sleeping on the sofa. Sleeping on the recliner."

Heritage Court Apartments has 32 affordable housing units for households with at least one member age 62 or older, according to its website. Messages left with the complex's owner, Accessible Space Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota, were not immediately returned.

Eastman said she liked Rosenberg and they often went to yard sales together. But Eastman's daughter, Margaret Rosso, said Rosenberg had become standoffish in recent months.

"He started getting more and more distant, complaining about the facility and about people and just kind of pulling away, isolating himself more and more," Rosso said.

Long did not identify the victims or provide information about the conditions of those who were wounded. Attempts to reach Rosenberg's family weren't successful.

Police comforted a distraught woman at the scene. What appeared to be a covered body was visible within an area cordoned off by authorities.

Multiple shootings are rare in Cheyenne, Wyoming's capital city with a population of just over 60,000. City police handled six homicide cases last year, the department's annual report said.
Guess they didn't know when to hold 'em.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#424 Sep 15 2016 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Well if they just would have given him a turn in the recliner this could have all been avoided. I mean he called dibs and all.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (89)