Why is it okay to be racist?
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago
0Some would have us all believe that BECAUSE leftists and their inbred cousin "the media " say systemic racism is widespread , that it actually is ! While we all know that there is no proof ,That it is or that it isn't all around us .
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Oh by the way Don W .......we still haven't seen shining examples of systemic racism in America today .
Saying systemic racism doesn't exists is the same as saying racial equality does exist across all social structures and institutions.
So ditto, I'd love to see some proof of that claim.It's a question of how we normally function in society. Things are assumed right until proven wrong. Innocent until proven guilty. Negative allegations only gain traction in rumor mills, unless there is evidence to back them up.
With the advent of social media we see this trend of guilty until proven innocent on the rise. We should never bow to the mob mentality of reacting to rumor and innuendo.Moral and legal notions of "right", "wrong", "guilt" and "innocence" aren't applicable here. The whole point about systemic racism is that, by definition, no individual is responsible for it. That's why it's called systemic.
If by right and wrong you mean correct and incorrect, people do not assume claims are correct until proven incorrect. The opposite is true.
Surely this is moot for you though, because your response to systemic racism was: "Of course it exists" (although you don't believe it exists everywhere).
Perhaps you could explain to onusonus and ahorseback why you believe their claim that systemic racism doesn't exist, is incorrect.Systemic racism is no more prevalent than any other problem that crops up, from time to time. Every system will create inequities. It is important to remember that and remain ever vigilant and willing to stamp inequities out, when found. The problem I have with your argument is that it appears to think that since no system is perfect this one is, somehow, uniquely flawed; consistently and limited to working only against specific groups.
I disagree with that. The system can, in pockets, gravitate toward racism, sexism, reverse racism, reverse sexism. It can work to the disadvantage of groups based on religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. In pockets.
I am not willing to function under the presumption that only one or two specific groups can be adversely affected or that one or two groups are always affected. To do so appears to relegate some into a preferential status and negate the value of the experiences of others.While it's good to stamp out individual examples of inequality, doing that alone can't address the issue of systemic racism.
Acts of racism are not always overt. They can be made unconsciously, and without intent or malice.
It's only when we look across entire systems, that we start to see the effects of such unconscious, unintended racial bias. So we also have to look at systems not just individuals.
I don't know the prevalence of racial inequality vs gender inequality etc, but I don't think it's helpful to compare them in that way. Each type of social inequality has different dynamics, and can intersect with others. So direct comparisons are very difficult.
But focusing on racial inequality doesn't mean we have to ignore gender inequality. If you want to create a thread to discuss that issue as we have here, I'd be happy to participate.
Racial disparities across various measures suggest one or two social groups are disproportionately affected. I don't think looking at the root causes of that "relegate some into a preferential status . . ." I think it's a reasonable and sensible thing to do.I think it is incredibly detrimental. It feeds into philosophies that are anti social and counter productive. It threatens to recreate a cycle of exclusion and persecution.
I read somewhere that the quote 'There is only one race. The human race' has been denigrated as racist. The current environment is very, very sad.
Just curious, but what percentage of interactions, say in the workplace, show systemic racism? 50%? 10%? 1%? Less?
And at what point do we sit back and wait as it dies out? Where is the point that we need to take major action to enforce existing laws prohibiting such things rather than allowing the offended to bring cause to us?You're not going to get any proof out of him. He doesn't have any.
Oh, I wasn't asking for proof of anything. Just an opinion, in an effort to understand just what Don considers "systemic". For myself, I might put it at 20% of interactions, but I suspect Don has a much lower bar.
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Still,........................The world awaits substantial proof of "Systemic Racism " constantly alleged here by the same people ? It's not enough to accuse , we have to show the evidence and after some time of no evidence , then what ?
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
I find it amazing and hypocritical for liberal minds to assume , no actually demand , that " systemic racism "exists at the same time as they demand "proof "of other ideological debates . So much for honest discussions to begin with .
If someone claimed unicorns exist, people wouldn't assume it's true. It's a deviation from the norm; a phenomenon never seen before. So, as per custom, people would assume the established norm is true, and not believe unicorns exist, until the person claiming otherwise, proves it.
Historical evidence tells us systemic racism is the norm, relative to the number of years the country has existed.
People in this thread claiming that 100% racial equality exists across all social structures and institutions, are claiming a deviation from that norm; a social phenomenon never seen before in the history of the country.
In keeping with custom, we should assume the norm is true, and not believe that 100% systemic equality exists, until those claiming otherwise, prove it.
So if you have supporting evidence for that claim, I'd be happy to see it.
Until then, I don't believe unicorns exist, because that deviation from the norm has not been proven. Likewise I don't believe 100% systemic equality exists, because that deviation from the norm has not been proven either.
If it's "honest discussion" you want, a good place to start would be to not treat claims related to racial equality, differently to the way we customarily treat other claims.Reasonable. But as long as your definition of "systemic inequality" includes just one person exhibiting inequality we will never have 100% equality. Personally I would call something "systemic" when half the people find it the norm and reasonable.
Sure, 100% equality is not my standard. I'm just responding to the claim some people are making that such equality already exists, which I don't believe is true.
I don't know, Don - I haven't seen a single post in these forums (or anywhere else) that has stated there is zero racism anywhere in the country.
They have stated that the "systemic" racism of the past does not exist. I take that to mean that it (and it did exist, make no mistake) has been reduced to the point that it isn't worthy of the term any more. I agree with that - racism most definitely exists, for we shall never wipe it from the minds of every single person, but it is not the widespread, "systemic" (system wide) racism of the past where it was considered normal and right by a large majority of the people.
Could be we're arguing over nothing but semantics?Thanks for clarifying what you take systemic racism to mean.
It does not mean widespread acceptance of racism.
Systemic racism refers to how racism is manifested in society's structures and institutions: the economy, politics, education, health, family etc.
Whether it's overt or not, accepted or not, conscious or not, is irrelevant.
What you are referring to is merely the prevalence of overtly racist attitudes and behavior. That's a different thing.
No need to speculate on what those with differing views understand systemic racism to mean. We can ask them:
Live To Learn, onusonus, and ahorseback, is it your understanding that systemic racism means: widespread, overt racism that is considered normal and right by a large majority of the people? Or do you take it to mean something else?It means something else. As I said previously, the definition currently being used to support negative stereotypes is ridiculous because we will never completely eradicate instances (isolated, to be sure) where some member of some group somewhere may consider themselves targeted. It doesn't prove anything exists. If you cannot offer examples you are probably, in most instances, not correctly identifying the root cause. Blaming racism first, without proof, is racist; in my opinion.
"Blaming racism first, without proof, is racist; in my opinion."
Very true, and that type of thing is probably closer to being "systemic" than anything else, for it is growing. Nearly every day we see more examples of events being called "racist" when they obviously are not. Too many people are looking, and looking hard for anything they can spin into racism, for it seems to give justification for their own poor behavior.I agree, it does mean something else.
But citing systemic racism as a significant root cause of certain social issue, is not racist. It's sensible and reasonable.
You don't agree. Fine. But I think it's fair for me to ask, if systemic racism is not a significant root cause of the disparities between races we are seeing, even after accounting for socio-economic level, then what is?
Most of the alternative explanations I have seen (including the "bad choices" argument) either don't add up, or invoke notions of racial superiority/ inferiority, which I disregard because I don't subscribe to racist views.
So if you have any alternative explanations, that make sense and don't invoke racism, please share them. That's a genuine request.Again, without your providing one example it is impossible to respond. Give me a clearly documented example. Recent. Within the last few years.
Examples of disparities?
People often refer to disparities between black and white communities, suggesting "bad choices" are mostly to blame for those disparities. So that's a place to start. Pick any area where black communities perform worse than white communities, within the same economic level. Could be health, wealth, poverty, unemployment, education, crime. Doesn't matter which.
I just want an explanation for why the disparity exists, that makes sense, and doesn't invoke ideas of racial inferiority/ superiority.
I assume you accept such disparities exist. If not, this will be a short exchange.No Don. You pick. Why is that so difficult? Do you not know of any examples? Can't find any?
I'm not sure what you're asking for. I've given you six examples of areas where there are disparities between black and white communities within the same economic level.
I think it's sensible and reasonable to conclude that systemic racism, and its effects, is a significant root cause for those disparities. You disagree with that view.
I'm simply asking what your explanation is for the disparities. Makes no difference to me which example area you choose. In fact it's better that I don't steer you down a particular path, to avoid accusations of bias.
All I ask is that your explanation makes sense, and doesn't invoke ideas of racial inferiority/ superiority.I can only go by what I know. Where I'm from, is a town with a fair amount of poverty. It used to be black and white, but now Hispanic also. But, you want me to focus on minority poverty only. It's kind of hard to do, since most are the same.
Why are the Hispanics, for the most part, less affluent? Could it have more to do with the fact that all are recently arrived to the country? My observation is that many of these families ensure their kids feel the American dream. Although it may cut into any potential savings their kids have more than their counterparts living in the same area. So, these families tend to focus on different things. They have different priorities. Studies have shown Hispanic families are more brand conscious and brand loyal. Why, those of us immersed for generations in the First World may ask. I don't. I kind of get it.
That doesn't make them wrong, or me racist. They work hard and spoil their kids with what they dreamed of and made a possibility.
Why is there an income gap? I would say that, in that community, language is a big factor in limited areas of job opportunities. I never hired a Spanish only speaking employee, although I did acquire a business with two on board. They didn't make me racist. My management style included team dynamics, maximum communication. I didn't need a worker who could only do one task and was not able to cross train to understand the entire operation.
Those two employees left, eventually, because of a demand to be paid 20% more than the rest of the crew even though they were unable to perform the most critical of the job functions which entailed monitoring and documenting.
Since their rate of pay matched what they had received with the previous owner, well above minimum wage, I didn't feel compelled to acquiesce.
These women had one skill, mine was the only business within 2 hours that required that skill. Last I heard neither had procured employment. Was I racist for running a fair and equitable establishment? Were they put upon and victims of discrimination?
Prior to that business I worked in an industry which hired independent contractors. We had quite a few subcontractors who were all Hispanic. We hired them because they were low bidders. They could bid low because their workers were paid low wages, they would put 4 to a hotel room to save costs, infrequently carried no Worker's Comp, which implies no benefits.
So we blame systemic racism for these workers making low wages with no benefits, or exploitation? Who is exploiting whom?
As I said. I'd have to know the particulars about any specific claim of being victimized by the system. It isn't as simple as some would have us believe.Interesting as they may be, individual stories don't address issues with systemic racism.
Generalizations based on personal experiences with individuals tend to be an unreliable way of finding the root causes of disparities between entire social groups.
Whatever your experience with specific individuals, I think it's reasonable to say entire social groups, across multiple families, across multiple generations, don't all simply decide to make themselves poorer, to such an extent that it affects the measured wealth of the entire social group.
That fails the "makes sense" test.
Also, when we look at disparities in wealth across all social groups we see the poverty rate for black people is even higher than for Hispanics. So unless all the reasons you cited also apply to black people, your explanation makes even less sense.
By citing individual decisions as root cause for the disparities in the area you chose (wealth) you are suggesting these social groups are proportionally poorer because individuals within them are worse at making decisions about accumulating wealth than other social groups.
Please explain why individuals within two social groups would be significantly worse than others at making decisions about accumulating wealth. Without sufficient explanation, this will fail the "inferiority/ superiority" test.
To be clear, I don't consider the fact that some Hispanic people you know like to "spoil their kids", a sufficient explanation for why entire social groups are significantly poorer than others.Where did you come up with 'worse at making decisions'?? If one person has $100,000 in a bank account and another spent $100,000 on goods and services why is one a good decision and the other bad? Why is someone disinterested in the accumulation of wealth wrong?
Your problem appears to be that you look at money. That's all. Many people desire and aspire to other things. You think everyone, if not living in a three bedroom two and a half bathroom house has somehow been wronged.
You also appear to simply want to insist systemic racism without giving any evidence of it, other than some people don't have what you think they should.
You are the one creating a superiority/inferiority test with your own value system, refusing to consider the values of the people you think you are standing in defence of. And, that's the problem Don. It's racist, to the core. You think you know better.I didn't say "worse at making decisions". I said ". . . worse at making decisions about accumulating wealth . . ."
"Worse" (in relation to quality) is not the same as "good" and "bad", which relate to morality. You introduced the value judgements, not me.
We're not talking about people who simply desire a three bedroom house. We're talking about wealth and poverty which are measurable economic indicators. And you chose the example, not me.
The poverty rate for Black people is higher than it is for Hispanic people, and significantly higher than other racial groups.
You say decisions and behaviors of individuals within those groups are the root cause of that disparity.
That implies the decisions/ behavior of individuals within those groups are worse (in relation to accumulating wealth) than those of individuals in other racial groups. That is literally an "inferiority" (lesser quality) argument.
In response you now seem to be suggesting the disparity is because people in those racial groups essentially choose to live in poverty, because they "desire and aspire to other things". Like what?
Also while I'm sure it's true that some individuals in society are disinterested in accumulating wealth, are you saying that's unique (or more prevalent) among Black and Hispanic people? If so what's that based on? If not, why would it significantly increase the poverty rate for those racial groups and not others?
I'm interested in seeing what a non-systemic racism explanation for disparities between racial groups looks like, but so far the explanation you have given is less reasonable, and less sensible (worse you might say) than the idea that systemic racism is a significant factor, and it also implies inferiority/ superiority based on racial grouping, which is literally racism.
If there is some important aspect of your explanation I have missed, feel free to let me know.Round and round we've gone. You, disinterested in delving deeper into the issue by discussing specifics thus, perhaps, gaining a better understanding of a pocket of society, gaining a broader picture of the whole. Me, unwilling to make broad accusations through blind acceptance of generalities. We have gotten no closer to an answer or an end.
The question left, then, which view could bring us closer to an end of perceived or hidden bias? I think that is the common goal. My experience has taught me that coddling delicate sensibilities does nothing to resolve inner conflict in the person experiencing them. Observation tells me that leaving them unchallenged leaves one generation to create another with festering resentment. My gut tells me this only exacerbates the problem.
Since following your type of belief has led us here (basically nowhere) over our life times, why would continuing to follow it make sense? To me, it sounds like the definition of insanity. If the common goal is for all to be and feel they have equality and a course proves imprudent and counter productive..... is holding steady, in order to lose ground in that quest, advisable?
And, does your presenting an argument from belief, offering absolutely no examples only demanding others share your belief, do anything other than perpetuate discord?You can't see if a forest is on fire by looking at an individual tree.
Likewise, you can't see if racism is systemic by looking at an individual person. Identifying patterns across groups is the best way to do it.
When we do that we see there are disparities between racial groups.
The options for explaining those disparities are:
1. individual decisions and behavior of the people within the groups
2. racism being systemic
3. something else
Problem with 1 is that, without the "blind acceptance of generalities" the explanation doesn't make sense and falls apart. But if you apply those generalisations, it leads down the road of racial inferiority / superiority, i.e. textbook racism.
The problem with 3 is that no one (to my knowledge) has ever found "something else" that a) explains the disparities across racial groups, b) actually makes sense, and c) doesn't invoke racial inferiority/ superiority.
That leaves 2. The idea that racism is not only interpersonal, but also systemic, explains the disparities we see between different racial groups. It makes sense, because disparities between racial groups is exactly what you'd expect to see if racism were systemic. And it doesn't invoke or rely on textbook racism.
The idea that racism is systemic, and these disparities are symptoms of it, is therefore the best explanation we currently have for what we are seeing.
So I think it is the most sensible and reasonable explanation.I don't think anything leads to textbook racism. Cultural differences isn't evidence of racism.
A couple of years ago I was eating lunch with 3 black women. They were regaling e with their perception of the difference between now black women raise children, vs white women. It was a funny conversation and I don't believe their beliefs were indicative of all black women or all white. But, it was indicative of some.
Again, a specific. And,again, you are the one placing inferior/superior value on outcome.
Actually, if one tree is on fire you can see it. From above you can see the flame. From a distance, you can see the smoke. From the right direction, you can smell the smoke. You haven't given any indication that there is smoke, or fire. What you have done is point out the obvious. The forest is full of trees and you are placing a higher value on one particular type of tree over another. Actually, you are lumping trees of the same type with all trees of that type from all forests. Different soil,light and nutrient conditions determine the harvest."I don't believe their beliefs were indicative of all black women or all white. "
Then those beliefs don't explain disparities between those racial groups.
A belief or behavior would have to be characteristic of a racial group for it to be relevant. And it would need to be representative of a large proportion of people within the group to be characteristic.
That is the problem with an individualist approach to disparities between racial groups. It can't address the issue properly, without resorting to generalizations based on race, which often lead to racism.
And I understand the argument that "inferiority" and "superiority" are relative to cultural values, and what is deemed desirable within a particular group.
But most people in society (regardless of race) do find it desirable not to live in poverty. And I don't know of any "cultural differences" that cause the majority of black and Hispanic people to find poverty desirable.
So if someone says the high poverty rates for black and Hispanic people is due to beliefs or behaviour characteristic of those racial groups, they are essentially saying the beliefs/ behaviour of black and Hispanic people are inferior (i.e. lesser in quality relative to achieving a goal that most people find desirable).
That is textbook racism. It may be racism borne out of ignorance or lack of understanding, but it is racism nevertheless.
Your explanations are convincing me even more that the individualist approach to disparities between racial groups is fundamentally flawed. It's also starting to convince me that, for anyone who rejects racist generalizations, systemic racism is actually self-evident.All right Don. Let's take a specific. Unwed mothers raising children without a father for the kids. We all know children in this environment are more likely to be incarcerated and poor after they mature. They are much more likely to commit crimes while young. We know a higher percentage of black children are raised in this environment than Latino or white.
Do you blame the outcome on systemic racism. If so, please explain. If not, who bears the responsibility for changing these sad statistics. What percentage of the poverty in this demographic is due to the effects of racism.It's not about "blaming" systemic racism. It's about identifying root causes.
That takes a bit more effort than just finding something (or someone) to blame.
It would be very easy to simply blame black men for the higher rates of single parent families in black communities. It would also be lazy.
While I'm certain you could point to individual men within black communities who are simply bad fathers. I'm also certain you could do the same with every other racial group.
So if we go down the road of suggesting that bad parenting is somehow characteristic of black men, again we run the risk of simply engaging in textbook racism.
So is there some "cultural difference" that makes two parent families somehow less desirable? Not that I can see.
Roughly equal numbers of black and white people say parenting is important to them (slightly less for Hispanic); higher percentages of black people than white or Hispanic say they want to be more involved in their children's education etc; and lots of people within black communities are critical of the decline of two parent families.
So evidence suggests being involved in parenting, raising children in two parent families etc. is deemed just as desirable within black communities, as it is within other racial groups. So if it's not happening, it's not due to a difference in cultural values.
So if we can't explain this disparity without resorting to racism, which is what typically happens with an individualist approach, how can we examine it from a systemic perspective?
Marriage and family are social structures like any other. They affect, and are affected by, other social systems: the economic system, political system, legal system, educational system, health system etc.
So one question we can ask is, how are marriage and family affected by these other social systems and structures?
Examining all those would be impractical here, but as an illustration we can look at one. There is a relationship between educational attainment and children born outside of marriage. Mothers who are college-educated are significantly less likely to be unmarried when they have children. In contrast women who are unmarried when they gave birth, are more likely to lack a high school diploma.
We can make reasonable guesses as to why, but it's an obvious example of how one social system (education) impacts social structures, like family.
So how might this impact different racial groups?
If the likelihood of being married when having children relates to (among other things) educational attainment, we would expect to see racial groups that have lower rates of educational attainment, have higher rates of children born to unmarried mothers.
That is what we do see.
Proportionally fewer black and Hispanic people have attained a degree or higher, compared to other racial groups. Proportionally more black and Hispanic mothers have children outside of marriage.
If we follow that line of enquiry and ask, why the disparity in educational attainment, we start to see that the economic system has an impact. Poverty contributes to lower rates of educational attainment. Which takes us back to the the initial question, why are proportionally more black people living in poverty?
This illustrates that social systems are interwoven in such a way that any significant negative tendency relating to one, contributes to negative tendencies in others.
This is why the issue is systemic in nature. It involves multiple social systems affecting, and being affected by, each other. So you can't just look at one issue in isolation. They're all interrelated.
This is an important point. When you understand this, you start to understand how racism can have such a significant impact across social systems, and why certain racial groups are disproportionately affected by certain things.
In other words, you start to understand why these disparities exist between racial groups.
The entry point for racism in all this, is the effects of historical systemic racism i.e. social structures and institutions that were overtly racist (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation etc.)
Though these racist structures have gone, they still reverberate across existing social systems like ripples across a pond. And because of the way social systems interrelate, the impact is significant. Legacy systemic racism essentially kick-started a cycle of poverty that has disproportionately affected African Americans ever since.
Existing racial bias within social systems takes a different form. It's less overt, which makes it harder to see in relation to individuals, but we can still see its effects on groups. I'll leave you to think about what effect conscious and unconscious racial bias might have in relation to the legal system etc. And what impact that might have on families.
And I haven't talked about the cycle of oppression, which helps perpetuate the effects of systemic racism, and is an important part of how it works. That's another story.
The main point is that a systemic approach explains disparities we see between racial groups (including single parent families) in terms of social systems, and how they interrelate. It doesn't rely on racial stereotypes or racist assumptions. Nor does it discard personal responsibility. It just doesn't assume that's the main factor.
And while it paints a sobering picture, it's not cause for despair. Because we know that individuals within the black community have broken the cycle of poverty through sheer hard work, force of will, talent and determination. So there's no reason for individuals not to keep trying to do that. But that doesn't mean people have to forget that a cycle of poverty and oppression exists and continues to keep significant proportions of an entire racial group impoverished.
Breaking those cycles is key. To do that, we have to understand the social systems they consist of. To do that, we have to look at it as a systemic issue, rather than as a matter of blaming individuals."So if we go down the road of suggesting that bad parenting is somehow characteristic of black men, again we run the risk of simply engaging in textbook racism. "
Is THAT where your stance lies? If there is statistical evidence that blacks do poorly (specifically, worse than whites) on something, anything, then it must be suppressed because truthful statistics are "racist"?That's not my stance, but thank you for asking rather than simply misrepresenting.
I have talked about disparities between racial groups throughout this thread. Acknowledging those disparities is not the issue.
But implying the cause of those disparities is some inherent inferiority/ superiority between racial groups, is textbook racism."But implying the cause of those disparities is some inherent inferiority/ superiority between racial groups, is textbook racism."
Then you DO find that truthful statistics can be racist. You're hiding it behind "inferiority/superiority" rather than merely "different" because we DO apply those labels to such things as fathering a child and running off, but the fact remains that you're trying to bury such facts - ignore them to maintain the fiction that all people are "equal" in all aspects.
It isn't true. Not only are individuals different, but so are races - groups of people sharing a physiological trait. Blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell, for example and whites are (I think) much more prone to skin cancer.
Now add in cultural differences - those differences that result from groups of people in different cultures. Suddenly the picture gets even wider, and those things we label "good" and "bad" begin to surface. It's still just a label, but it is label the majority of us will accept - running out on being a father, for example, is "bad". Does that make negative facts worthy of burying because they are "racist" even if true?I understand the argument that "inferiority" and "superiority" are relative to cultural values, and what is deemed desirable within a particular group.
But evidence suggests two-parent families are deemed just as desirable within black communities, as any other groups.
So the fact there are proportionally more single-parent families in black communities, is not because of some mysterious "cultural difference" that makes more black people want to raise children in single-parent families.
Just as there is no "cultural difference" that makes proportionally more black people want to live in poverty.
I think we need to stop pretending black people are like aliens from another planet, who are "different".
Black and white people have more cultural values in common than not."But evidence suggests two-parent families are deemed just as desirable within black communities, as any other groups. "
Really hard to accept that "evidence" when the percentage of one parent children is so much higher for blacks than other races. Perhaps the studies visited only middle class neighborhoods? Perhaps they didn't interview black gang members or drug users? Perhaps they ignored the evidence of statistics from welfare rolls when drawing their conclusions? Did they interview only mothers, not absentee fathers?
I don't have a clue, but when you state that blacks want two parent families just as much as other races, and ignore the statistics showing the opposite (you don't have that level of single parent families unless you either want them or don't care) it says something about your willingness to look at everything, not just things that show "equality".
Don, I keep harping on the fatherless families because it is so obvious and has such large effects, but there are many differences between black and white culture right in this country. Until we learn to actually live together everywhere (suburbia, maybe, where I would be shocked to find the level of single parents equal to the average for the race) it isn't going to change.
But that does not make it "systemic"...unless the system is the black culture being embraced. That there are lots of similar cultural values does NOT mean that there are lots that are not so similar (remember, we're talking national averages here, not specific areas or socio-economic groupings). And to my mind, poverty is producing the majority of those differences - that's where the attack needs to be made, not by claiming systemic discrimination and expecting that to somehow eliminate the inner city ghettos and the rural poverty in much of the south.Just because someone is a single-parent, it doesn't follow that they therefore want to be a single parent, or find it desirable.
That's the equivalent of saying because someone lives in poverty, they therefore want to live in poverty and find it desirable.
Both are non sequiturs.
The disparity in single parent families shows only that there are proportionally more single-parent families in black communities, relative to other racial groups. It does not show that a majority of black people find single parent families desirable.
That is also a non sequitur.
And if there were a "cultural difference" that caused black people to desire single-parent families, we would expect to see that across every social strata within black communities.
We don't see that.
Children with at least one college-educated parent are significantly more likely to live in a two-parent household.
Moreover, when we look at other racial groups we see similar relationships between family and various social systems. E.g. children living in poorer white families are more likely to live in single-parent homes etc.
This reinforces the point that families are social structures, affected by wider social systems (the educational system, economic system, legal system, health system etc.)
The difference is, for black communities these issues are aggravated and perpetuated by the additional effects of systemic racism, which explains why black communities are disproportionately affected.
Therefore the number of single-parent families in black communities, is most likely a symptom of the wider issues relating to those social systems, plus the compounding effects of historical and current systemic racism.
I think that's the most sensible and reasonable conclusion, based on information currently available.Therefore the number of single-parent families in black communities, is most likely a symptom of the wider issues relating to those social systems, plus the compounding effects of historical and current systemic racism.
I think that's the most sensible and reasonable conclusion, based on information currently available.
If one accepts your reasoning can you then explain why it has gotten worse, not better, since 1960?There has been a decline in two-parent families across society as a whole since the 60s (from around 87% to around 69%). So the decline is not unique to black communities.
What is unique is the degree of the decline in black communities. I believe that is due to the effects of historical and current systemic racism, which tends to compound general social issues, causing them to impact that community disproportionately.
So my answer remains essentially the same:
The increase in single-parent families in black communities since the 60s, is most likely a symptom of the wider issues affecting society as a whole, plus the compounding effects of historical and current systemic racism.Hmm. So you are basically saying that the civil rights movement was not only a dismal failure but also a toxic mix for the black community.
Interesting.I don't think that.
I do think your "cultural differences" argument just fell apart though.
Who would have thought that black people are not aliens from another planet, and actually have the same values as white people, with both racial groups facing a decline in two-parent families? Go figure!LOL. You appear to be the one who sees black people as different. It's amusing that your entire argument attests to that and you are obviously blind to it.
I'd like to say it's amusing that you think African Americans are essentially foreigners with foreign values, but it's not amusing.
I'd like to say it's amusing that you think wearing sagging pants is equivalent to wearing a Swastika; a symbol that literally means someone advocates genocide, but it's not amusing.
I'd like to say it's amusing that you think black people live in poverty because they find it desirable, but it's not amusing.
I'd like to say it's amusing that you are happy to break things down into socio-economics terms, yet refuse to accept that launching African Americans into a cycle of poverty through centuries of systemic racism might have impacted that group's current socio-economic level; can't understand how poverty can be a cause of single-parenthood and an effect of it; a cause of lower educational attainment and an effect of it; can't understand how racial bias then aggravates those conditions creating the systemic issues we can all see.
I'd like to say all that is amusing, but it's not. It's just a sad reminder of the kind of struggle black people are dealing with.you have really outdone yourself with this one. At no point have I stated, or implied, that African American are foreigners with foreign values. You, since I will not agree with your assessment that they are somehow different; are making this up.
Wearing a swastika and sagging your pants is not equivalent. On some levels. If we are looking at whether or not both put forth a negative customer service experience; you have to admit they do. Being appropriately dressed in a customer service environment involves doing neither. You can certainly attempt to twist the comment into some racial overtone but you are showing racial overtones in the attempt.
You are welcome to misrepresent my argument by implying I am denying the effects of historic racism. But, that is not the truth and you should be somewhat embarrassed by this blatant attempt to shore up your failing arguments. You have never offered any explanation why 60 years of legislation in an attempt to counter the historic problems has not only not helped the problem but apparently exacerbated it.
No. I don't see how poverty causes single parenthood. Unless it is your contention that poor people are genetically different from every other human being. Unless you believe that poor people are inherently less intelligent than other people. Unless, you believe that poverty somehow is the birthplace of different moral values. Since I don't I can't, for the life of me, understand why you would present such an argument that is insulting to more and more Americans each year.
I have presented the fact that I agree that poverty (depending on the area a child grows up in) will adversely affect their primary education and will definitely affect their ability to attain a higher education. You are the one presenting an argument of systemic racism (which you cannot back with on tangible fact). Without that tangible fact your argument devolves into a racist belief that somehow whites and asians are better suited to escape the cycle of poverty. Your argument devolves into a belief that hispanics and blacks are inferior. My argument is simply that people are people and all people, given the same set of disadvantages will be adversely affected.
You, the racist in this argument, can certainly continue to believe that only with your pity these groups might eventually get a fair break. I don't think anyone needs to be pitied. I have enough faith in my fellow human beings to know they are not the inferior, substandard, members of our community you keep pushing them to be.And at which point did I say that the civil rights movement was a "dismal failure" and "a toxic mix for the black community"?
If you're going to misrepresent my views, don't complain when I return the favor.
I stand by everything else I have said.
I don't care how much someone dislikes them, wearing saggy pants is not equivalent to wearing a Swastika. That's nonsensical.
Civil rights legislation has undoubtedly helped reduce overt racism. But that doesn't mean we can't also look at how to address systemic racism.
Of course poverty can contribute to single-parent families. The fact you can't see that is not my fault. But it's not rocket science. Poverty causes all types of stress. Stress causes marriages and relationships to break down. Combine that with changing attitudes towards sex, marriage and divorce, and you have some factors that contribute to single parent families.
If poverty contributes to single-parent families, and black communities have a proportionally higher poverty rate, the outcome is obviously going to be more single-parent families in black communities.
And why is the poverty rate for black people proportionally higher than all other racial groups? I can tell you it's not because black people desire poverty because of "cultural differences". A significant factor is the effects of historical systemic racism that you say you accept, but also seem to want to completely ignore, because apparently all those effects magically disappeared in 1964.
And how interesting that you think it's insulting to say poverty among white families contributes to single-parent families. But you're happy to talk about "cultural differences" that cause black communities to have more single-parent families.
Yes, given the same disadvantages will all be adversely affected in a similar way. But they;re not the same. African Americans have been massively disadvantaged, for a sustained period of time in a way that other racial groups in the country simply haven't. It's no surprise to any sensible person, that the same racial group is disproportionately affected by poverty and other issues. You'd have to be in complete denial to fail to understand that.
And calling me a racist won't disguise the fact that your arguments rely on racist tropes. "Cultural differences" is just the latest way of suggesting that black people are somehow "other" to white people. You seem to believe that's fine, because we're not calling them inferior, we're just calling them "different". The fact you don't know there is a problem with that, is part of the problem.Your argument fails. Completely. Unless you can explain how all of the civil rights actions could have made financial and familial things worse. Not better.
Thanks. You've convinced me.
You've convinced me that an individualist explanation of the disparities between racial groups doesn't make sense, and merely rehashes ideas of inferiority and "cultural differences".
It's also made me come to form a stronger appreciation for the systemic approach, which does makes sense and doesn't rely on outmoded, outdated racial bias.You are the one promoting inferiority, not me. The systemic approach would make sense, if you had any evidence. You are like a theist, you believe so it must be so. You take it on faith. I need evidence.
As I said from the start, if you have an explanation for the disparities between races that explains them, makes sense, and doesn't rely on arguments of inferiority, I'm happy to hear it.
I even gave you the choice of which area to look at.
You chose disparities in poverty. Your explanation? "Cultural differences".
I pointed out that your explanation is basically saying black people are worse at making decisions about money than all other racial groups, which is an inferiority argument, i.e. textbook racism.
You said you're not calling black people inferior, you're suggesting they "desire and aspire to other things". Hence "cultural differences".
I pointed out that most people in society (regardless of race) find it desirable not to live in poverty, and that I'm not aware of any "cultural differences" that make the majority of black people find poverty desirable.
You gave no explanation. Instead you changed the subject to the disparity in single-parent families increasing since the 60s.
Your explanation? "Cultural differences".
You made essentially the same argument. So we went round again.
But I pointed out that the decline in two-parent families is not unique to black communities at all. It's a general trend happening in families across society, including white families. So how could it be about "cultural differences"?
Again, you gave no explanation. Resorting to a throw-away line about the civil rights movement.
As I suggested before, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Your attempt to find evidence of systemic racism by looking at individuals is misplaced.
The evidence you seek is in the patterns that we see among groups. The problem is we are starting with different assumptions, so we are seeing different things.
You seem to start from the assumption that black people are "culturally different" so desire different things.
I start from the assumption that black people are fundamentally no different to white people, or other racial groups, and we desire the same things:
The desire to be financially prosperous.
The desire to be able to feed a family.
The desire for a safe, secure, stable family.
The desire for a son or daughter to do well for themselves in the world.
To me, these are not "white" desires. Nor are they "black" desires. They're human desires.
That assumption of commonality rather than difference changes the way I look at the issue. If we all have the same essential desires, what could be preventing a social group from realizing those desires?
I actually think we agree on this. The disparities relate to the poverty cycle. But I'm going further, and asking why is this particular social group so disprpotionately affected by the poverty cycle in the first place.
History answers that question. It's no coincidence that the racial group denied the right to own property and land for centuries is, to this day, the racial group with the lowest level of land and property ownership in the entire country. And that's just one example of how the past is till impacting the present.
We'd be foolish not to accept the effect of historical systemic racism is still being felt, and is one of the root causes for the cycle of poverty, which is uniquely felt by black communities.I pointed out Hispanics. Many of which are recent immigrants. You keep attempting to use that as justification for claiming (falsely) that I am targeting blacks.
No one is claiming there was not past injustice. Only you appear to believe it is somehow genetically embedded in the black community, giving them no ability to take advantage of any strides made toward equality.
You have, repeatedly, ignored requests to explain why the problems have gotten worse, not better, for the last sixty years of government attempts to ensure equality for all.
You claim you believe in commonality, yet your constant argument is race, race, race. You claim you believe in commonality but you refuse to acknowledge behavior, because you think it has something to do with race.
The benefits of a two income family unit cannot be over stressed. But, you ignore this because of race. You attempt to whitewash the problem. Because of race.
Your argument is built on racism Don. Different communities value different things. Success is measured differently by different people. Happiness has infinite variety. We can't all have it all.
I can tell you one thing that unifies the human race. Tell a group long enough, and loud enough, that they are different and deserve special treatment and you'll slowly convince them all. Once they believe it, the outcome isn't pretty.You are claiming disparities between races are due to "cultural differences" between black and Hispanic people, and other racial groups.
You keep saying those groups "desire and aspire to other things" (your words).
Fine, like what? What are black and Hispanic people aspiring to that causes those entire racial groups to have the highest and second highest poverty rates respectively?
Now you're saying "Success is measured differently by different people".
Well for that to affect entire groups, most people in those groups would need to measure success differently.
So how exactly are most black and Hispanic people measuring success, and how does that cause those groups to have the highest rates of poverty?
These are your arguments, not mine. You raised "cultural differences" as an explanation for poverty. I'm just asking what that actually means.Different people, not based on race Don. I've explained my opinion of wealth disparity for Hispanics. Throw in a large percentage of people who have, within the last couple of generations, immigrated from poor nations and it will skew the results.
Blacks, I can say that if 60 years of affirmative action has been in place, with the outcome a greater disparity in wealth, looking to racism as the primary culprit is a fool's errand. I might agree, if figures had gotten marginally better. But worse? I think arguments such as yours bear a large brunt of the responsibility for the expanding disparity.Different people, not based on race? So by "cultural differences", do you mean what I would call personal differences, i.e. differences between individuals?
If so, are you saying you believe personal differences (differences between individuals) explains the disparities between racial groups?
In fact, are you saying we shouldn't even break the stats down by racial groups at all? We should only look at individuals?You first Don. I've asked,repeatedly, why 60 years of affirmative action, in your opinion, has seen a greater gap in wealth. If you won't put forth a theory on the why, I'm done with our conversation.
I'm trying to save us both some time.
I think you have been using the term "cultural differences" differently to me. That may have caused some confusion and misunderstanding.
Not clarifying what we both mean by that term will lead to more confusion and misunderstanding, which wastes both our time.
I use "cultural differences" to mean different beliefs, behaviors, customs, values etc. between entire social groups. You seem to be using it to refer to different beliefs, behaviors etc. between individuals (what I would just call "personal differences").
I can't assume that's the case though.
So participate, or don't participate. That's up to you. But it's not sensible to have a discussion without clarifying if you are using that term as I think you might be.
If you are, perhaps we can agree to use "cultural differences" to mean differences between defined groups and "personal differences" to mean differences between individuals. If you prefer different terms, fine. Doesn't matter, as long as we both understand what we mean, so can avoid confusion.All you had to do was say no. You won't answer the question.
All you had to do was say was no, you don't want to save time and prevent further misunderstanding by clarifying what you mean by a key term that will be used in future discussion, including any answer I give to your question. That's your choice.
?? Thought you said the black group was much further down the road of single parent families? That hardly sounds like the "same values" to me!
"Black families have declined much more in two parent families than other races. But it is not their fault; it is systemic racism."
Don, I wondered when we'd get to that point. Is there anything detrimental that blacks do more that others that you won't put down to systemic racism? That is their fault, not someone else's?
This seems to be the crux of the debate; everything bad that the black community does is to be blamed on "systemic racism"; they are not responsible for their actions. A stance that others find more than a little difficult to swallow - conservatives in particular are noted for a heavy belief in responsibility for ones actions rather than trying to shift blame onto a third person innocent of involvement at all. Or onto a "system"."Black people can't do anything right, and everything bad that happens is their fault"
See, I can create false quotes too. It's not hard. It's just dishonest.
Please don't make up false quotes and imply they come from me. I can do the same, but that would be a futile exercise don't you think.
Individuals are indeed responsible for their own actions. That doesn't mean social systems and social structures can't be the root causes for the disparities between racial groups though.
And the individualist approach you are advocating simply can't address the issue properly, because that issue is systemic in nature.That was intended as an indication of what you said; a compilation of my interpretation of your words. (Or did I just punctuate it wrongly? I wasn't sure how to do that.) Not a direct quotation. Did I misunderstand? Your comments here seem to support it - "That doesn't mean social systems and social structures can't be the root causes for the disparities between racial groups though.".
So I repeat: is there any cultural characteristic of blacks, that we would consider negative (single parent families, high school drop out rate, high incarceration, high gang membership, etc.) that you do NOT blame on your "systemic racism"?I'll put it down to punctuation mistake. Typically quotation marks indicate speech or a direct quote. To give an indication of what you think someone said (to paraphrase) don't use quotes.
You seem to think I'm denying personal responsibility. I'm not. Individuals can (and do) break free from the cycle of poverty. Likewise individuals can (and do) make terrible choices for themselves.
But that does not change the fact that social systems have an impact on social structures like families.
Sure I think there are lots of social issues I consider undesirable, but I don't see those as "characteristics of blacks". Again the issues themselves are not unique. The degree to which black communities are affected is.
That tells us something is acting as a multiplier. For some reason you think that is "cultural differences". I don;t buy that. Based historical facts and what we know about social systems work, I think it's more likely to be the effects of historical and current systemic racism."Sure I think there are lots of social issues I consider undesirable, but I don't see those as "characteristics of blacks"."
We're getting closer. All of those things I mentioned are characteristics of the black race in America - meaning they have a higher percentage than other races. Are there any such "cultural characteristics" (for lack of a better term) that are negative and for which you do NOT claim "systemic racism"?
Let’s be clear, from the outset. You are the one initially breaking things down by race. You are the one asking why, when breaking down by race, we see disparities. Everyone else here (for the most part) isn’t.
It is very convenient to claim ‘systemic racism’ then admit that individuals can do bad things, then insist that we not take into account individual actions when we are tallying up statistics among your choice of groups.
If you do not factor race into the equation you would come up with clearly different assumptions. If I look at the groups of people who were born in poverty, raised by one nonworking parent I’d probably come up with similar outcomes. If I look at a group of people born in poverty, with one working parent; I’d probably come up with similar outcomes. If I chose to continue this exercise and changed the family and income dynamic; during the course of childhood, I’d probably come out with similar outcomes within the group.
But, if you are going to insist on breaking down by race we will have different outcomes; primarily because of the facts that a higher percentage of children within the black community are raised without a father. That isn’t laying blame it is stating facts.
The scary thing is that this trend within the black community (which incidentally started its upward trek in the 1960’s) is growing throughout America. We have to determine the why of that trend, and we have to start with the start of it.
You, again, attempt to throw it into the category of racism by insisting that it is somehow a characteristic that can only be found in high percentages with black men. That is unfair since, prior to the 1960’s these statistics did not exist. By your way of thinking, people appear to think that black men had a genetic mutation which swept the community, undetected, at that time. That’s kind of silly, and incredibly racist. It would be racist on your part since you are attempting to put forth an argument that black men are somehow different from the rest of us.
I’ll take you at your word on the survey of what parents think is important in regards to parenting. I don’t find those figures odd; in the least. The black community has identified that when they look at a community, by only identifying race; that race is in crisis, for that exact reason. It’s been documented and talked about. Everyone knows that a higher percentage of black males are in prison. Everyone agrees on the chain of events that make that more likely for those men. Only a fool would ignore the importance of parenting to break that cycle.
When taking a survey, if the chances are twice as much that a child in one group is more likely to be in a one parent household than the child of another group; the group with the higher risk rate will certainly look to that risk and their comments will reflect that.
You are the one suggesting cultural values as the culprit. I don’t think any community sets out to teach children to grow up to be irresponsible. When I talk about culture it isn’t broken down by race. We have many cultures in America. These cultures are not segregated. Any are welcome to join, most of them. When you look at a child growing up without boundaries and without the benefit of full parenting experience, they are exposed to cultures that are detrimental to the idea of a two parent unit raising children.
Children without the benefit of full parental oversight and input will be exposed to a lot of things I personally believe the content of which is too mature for their little brains to process. They will make horrible decisions because their morals are mush and extremely malleable. If allowed to do this they will grow up with an inability to understand the ramifications of their decisions and experience perplexity when it is pointed out that they have laid a bed they eventually decide they don’t want to lay in. These children, without having had any personal experience of full parental oversight will, more than likely, not see a need for it in the next generation; at least they will not see the need to actively participate. This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with tiny human beings turning into full grown human beings who were denied parental guidance in a major part of their growth.
You admit that individual family dynamics are affected by, other social systems: the economic system, political system, legal system, educational system, health system etc. but then you want to, again, break it down by race. I’m a believer in breaking things down by socio economics; not race. I find that makes more sense, when you view the individuals. And, even then, you have to give some leeway. Pockets of poverty within major cities will result in being raised at a disadvantage within every system you have outlined. Poverty has nothing to do with race. A kid embedded in one of those systems; no matter their race, will suffer similar consequences and be more prone to similar outcomes.
You attempt to explain the problems, using racial segregation in the process. There isn’t a thinking human who doesn’t now the causes of poverty. But, when you break this down by race you create more problems. You set the stage for the individual to feel victimized, based on race, by a system. Now, I will grant you there is a higher rate of poverty among the black community. I will grant that community then runs the risk of higher victimization by the system. However, it isn’t racism that created it. It is the cycle of poverty. You are putting the cart before the horse and trying to have the horse push it up hill; running the risk of killing the horse when the load proves too much. You create the problem by presenting a cart and inviting people to jump on it because, they are victims and, as such, deserve a ride.
Having read through your entire comment I see nothing but racism imbedded. We can agree on pretty much all of the problems but not the causes. As you said, it is a proven fact that individuals can break the cycle of poverty. You, on the one hand, want to praise the individual, and on the other demand that the individual not be looked to for example. It's ludicrous.
Why, if individuals can break the cycle, (if we are breaking this down by race, as you insist we do) and government intervention has proven that the root causes are not being minimized but are increasing at alarming rates; would we continue to follow a path that has proven not only dismally ineffective but dangerously detrimental to the effort? Why would we allow this path to mushroom into racial tensions by cheering on prejudicial ideals pushed forward in our social media?
But Don, I never said anything about being overt. That is not a part of any definition I would use, for the quiet, unobtrusive racism can still be systemic (and was), and in today's world comes far closer than the in-your-face racism of job or housing discrimination, back of the bus type of thing or other overt racism.
No, the key factor is how widespread it is, not whether overt or not, and I don't see it reaching the level of being called "systemic". It is not something system wide at all.You referred to systemic racism as "racism of the past where it was considered normal and right by a large majority of the people".
As racism of the past was more overt, this description implies you think systemic racism refers to more overt racism. Thanks for clarifying that's not the case.
Either way, your description is not what systemic racism is.
It does not refer to racism being "considered normal and right by a large majority of the people". Acceptance of racist attitudes/ behaviour is irrelevant to the idea of systemic racism.
Likewise it does not simply mean lots of examples of individual racism.
As Live To Learn says, it means something different.
As you are not clear what the term systemic racism refers to, I recommend reading up on it some more, then perhaps using this thread to confirm your understanding.
At the moment we're not talking about the same things.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Don W , I think I experienced systemic racism once , I went into a motor vehicle registration office in a state where almost of the employees were African American , I'm not , how long do you think it took someone to make eye contact with me ?
That count as systemic racism ?There is an Auto Zone here where a white male has to wait until any people of color have been waited on before they can get service. I laughed at them over it. Serves them right. The Menonite store makes women wait until all men have been taken care of.
Life's a b#tch.No, because social justice is stupid regardless of which side the racism comes from. Systemic inequality implies that there is a collaborative effort between entities in power to oppress certain groups of people. This ideology requires no proof of wrong doing, and seeks to divide the people in order to give power to the government. And the people who buy into this are the useful idiots they need to get votes without having to be burdened with the task of solving problems.
I always find it perplexing that the party that perpetually cries "Racism " the loudest always does the least to politically solve its existence .
Having worked with hand tools my entire life I can only guess election cycle tools just rust away in between their election needs .
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
All anyone HERE has "proven " is that the self absorbing inferiority complex of African Americans is the greater reason for disparities in race . In other words , " because my skin tone is darker I then get to set the tone of the entire conversation ."
On the darker side , being able to carry the tone and excuse all of the charges against my people and perceived social injustices , being able to excuse the statistical proof that there are real differences in how I treat my own kind , why my cultures crime statistics are different than all others , why I can direct the actual tone of the conversation in any debate because well " look at my skin color "
Americans as a whole do not have to assume one ounce of guilt for racial disparities TODAY simply because of the news media and social media's bias nor because of the bias of activist academia toiling away at social reengineering . It's time for all "classes " of America's melting pot to assume their own, sometimes incredibly difficult cultural responsibilities .
In other words , white , black ,pink , green or brown of skin color , Grab onto your boot straps and pull , get out , get to work and change your own small part of the world , assume responsibility for your own contributions or lack thereof , to your own people , "Clean up your own house first " .
The truth is , Everyone in America has their own" cross to bear " be it religion , race , ethnicity , ideology or economic divide . Stop shame --blaming and finger pointing and get on with making this country better by making yours and so someone else's lives better each and every single day , Your misery whether individually or collectively is generally no one else's fault but your own .
It's interesting just how the absolute truism that racism is a two way mirror is too often conveniently ignored by the many posts here , that the consistency of an accusation of racism towards "whites " -reflects the actual and real racism of the accusers . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Liberals Americans are actually Obsessed with race , why ? Because without the last vestiges of poverty in the world and especially in the US's liberal run inner cities , such liberals would have absolutely NO ideological cause to prop in front of national television and say " Look , we have saved the minorities again ".
Why does any reasonable person at all believe that liberals are ALL IN FOR immigrating as much poverty as they can in our southern borders ? Increase the poverty roles , increase the democratic voting base ! I would have put the timeline a little further back, but that's something I fully agree with.
I had thought this thread had devolved to Don not answering questions and not providing any valuable input. Very nice quote and, so true. Thanks.
Strange, I thought it had descended into you not clarifying what you mean, then blaming others for your short-comings as a way of disengaging from a discussion you have no sensible argument for, but that's just me.
Don, I answered your question and asked a question. You refused to answer and asked me for clarification. I clarified and repeated the question. Again and again you refused. You aren't looking for dialogue. That's obvious. I completely understand your fear of answering questions.
Not wasting my time answering a question when the person asking can't even be bothered to clarify what they mean by the terms they are using, especially when that term is likely to be used in the answer.
I'm more than happy to discuss anything with anyone (with the exception of people who have no interest in good-faith discussion). So when you'ready to clarify what you mean by "cultural differences" (if you haven't already without me noticing) let me know. If not, then not problem, enjoy the rest of the forum.LOL. Deflect, deflect, deflect. You won't answer a simple question Don. That speaks volumes as to what is going on here.
If you choose not to answer a simple question, that's your choice. I can't help you with that.
Don, this is ridiculous. But you knew that already. You won't answer a question. I answered everything you asked, until it became clear you could not, would not, explain your opinion on one simple point. Must be a b#tch, not being able to hold an opinion of your own.
Said the guy who didn't get the Nobel Prize for . . . anything.
You're really going to compare Obama's failed economic policy to Thomas Sowell?
Oh wait, you're just repeating the opposite of everything I say.You're really going to compare Sowell's failed theories to Barrack Obama?
Oh wait, you're just repeating tired right-wing talking points.
(You wanted to turn a sensible discussion into a p'ing contest. Fine. But better to let you compete with yourself, which you have been doing for some time now. It's quite fascinating. I'm interested to see what you'll say to you next!)So what about Thomas Sowell's economics do you believe are a failure?
So what about President Obama's economics do you believe are a failure?
Well, we can start with the worst GDP growth since the great depression, under the Obama admin, doubling the nations debt, nuclear deals with Iran and North Korea, the Paris accords, Solyndra, Obamacare.
Well, we can start with Sowell's opinions on GDP, the great depression, the nations debt, nuclear deals with Iran and North Korea, the Paris accords, Solyndra, Obamacare, if any.
Why bother? The person you are attempting to converse with has not been interested in a conversation, thus far.
Yeah, He's not even worth responding to at this point.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Obama lazily rode out a GW Bush war economy and spent it like a sailor in a strip club AND still doubled the debt , Great Job food stamp man ! Trump is changing all that , no war economy , no food stamps ,no "stimulus "..............
Blue wave ?
Yes it is ridiculous that someone can't be bothered to clarify the meaning of a term they are using, but thinks others are obliged to accept that.
I'm not obliged to and I don't.
Either clarify the term you have repeatedly used, or don't. I don't mind which you do, but whining about out isn't going to help.
If your previous comments are anything to go by, your argument wouldn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny anyway, so no great loss.Likewise If YOUR previous comments are anything to go by, your argument wouldn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny anyway, so no great loss.
Likewise If YOUR previous comments are anything to go by, your argument wouldn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny, so no great loss.
It is a pity when you create a thread for honest and open dialogue and it degrades down to a guy who refuses to participate in an exchange of ideas hijacking the thread.
I pity those who fear an open exchange of ideas.It can be frustrating, but unlike most liberals I believe in free speech. I consider his immature behavior as an inability to sensibly refute ideas. He's simply a sore looser.
I see it as more telling than being unable to refute. His refusal to answer my one question shows an obvious problem. He is unwilling to openly discuss the issue.
That is the left, today. They have talking points they know they must stick to. They fear deviating from those specific points. They fear becoming a target of the mob.It's kind of sad and pathetic if you think about it.
Yes. It's sad. But scary too. What will we become of America if their agenda of hatred and divisiveness over powers reason and civil discourse?
It can be frustrating, but unlike most conservatives I believe in free speech. I consider your immature behavior as an inability to sensibly refute ideas. You're simply a sore looser.
lol implying I'm chicken won't help you.
You are entitled to refuse to clarify your meaning. I am entitled to call that unreasonable and unacceptable.
Feel free to clarify what you mean, and continue the discussion. Or not. Up to you. But again, whining about it won't resolve the situation.
Two liberal views. Neither is funny to a conservative.
Wait, let me check . . .
Nope, "funny" isn't among the words I'd use to describe that cartoon.
Accurate and sad? Yes. Funny? Not so much.
I guess that makes me "a conservative" lol.Hoping a kid has leukemia and dies is accurate? The left uses minorities and keeps them down is accurate?
I agree. It's very sad.Nice try. Obviously I was referring to the image I posted, which is clear from my referring to it as "that cartoon".
The denial you and others have shown in this thread is exactly what the cartoon depicts.
Yes it is sad, and yes it is accurate.It is an accurate depiction of how the left has made promises and left those they claimed to care about with nothing, but broken promises.
You did say both views were funny to a conservative. You have not proven either is. You've only proven you push discord without the weight of reason to back up your views.
You're comparing apples to oranges. People don't accept blatant racism from whites the way they do from minorities.
Also last time I checked, Asians are among the most prolific people in the country despite historical racism, which is what she is.This reminds me of the racist views on CNN toward Kanye West. Racists deflecting and diverting attention from their blatant racism, by pretending others are actually them.
The belief that proportionally more black people are in poverty because of "cultural differences" (read they are inferior) to other racial groups. Now that's racist.
Know anyone around here who holds that view?
[edit: the term used was "cultural differences" not "cultural values". Quotation updated to reflect that]Do you find "black culture" identical with "white culture", then? Or "Hispanic culture", "Chinese culture" or any of several others?
Or is it too "racist" to accept that different races have different cultures even in the same country?He can't. But, he is making the judgment that some cultures are inferior. Sounds racist to me.
It is. If nothing else because he thinks everyone is identical - the fear of being called racist can and does result in racism.
My comment is not based on what I (and probably you) understand "cultural differences" to mean. It's based on what Live to Learn means by "cultural differences", which is apparently different.
To understand why that makes it into something racist, you'll need to understand what she means by the term. It wouldn't be fair for me to speak on behalf of Live to Learn, so ask her to explain what she means by it.Oh, I think we all understand how the term is being used. You just don't want to talk about it, and refuse to acknowledge that cultural differences exist as you think that would make you a racist.
Hint: recognizing reality does not make you a racist.Speak for yourself.
I don't know what Live to Learn means by "cultural differences". I know what I mean by it: differences in beliefs, behaviors, customs, values etc. between different social groups. And that's what I assume you mean by it too.
In contrast, Live to Learn has implied it relates to differences between individuals, not social groups. I don't understand that use of the term and I've never heard it used like that.
If you understand it, fantastic. Happy for you to enlighten me.
If you don't then, like me, you're only guessing at Live to Learn's meaning, which is not conducive to a sensible discussion.
In that case I'll just have to go back to seeing how long I can get onusonus to keep talking to himself (it appears to be some kind of compulsion - it's fascinating to behold).
(1) https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4032357
You're comparing apples to oranges. People don't accept complaints about almost anything from minorities the way they do from white people.
Also last time I checked, white people are among the least racially oppressed people in the country, which is what the character in that cartoon is.Still having a hard time coming up with original thoughts I see.
Senator Warren is a prime example of why the problem persists. You have white people taking advantage of minorities by claiming kinship through minute portions of their DNA, using that false kinship as some type of bullet proof vest to claim their actions and words aren't racist, because they possess a little of a depressed population in their genes, and then blasting other white people because with little difference in actions and outcome the others don't make similar claims.
And, the crowning jewel of the hypocrisy is those who support Warren turn a blind eye and shut their ears to statements by depressed minorities that she is not part native American, but would not do the same for those they do not support.
Related Discussions
- 60
Why Do So Many White People Believe All Racism Is In The Past?
by VC L Veasey 9 years ago
Why Do So Many White People Believe All Racism Is In The Past?
- 199
We're All Racists
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
We're all racist in some ways. But racism by white people seems to be more newsworthy and gets more attention than racism by others. There are many people who work hard to not do anything to offend their fellow human, but it's impossible to escape prejudice - it's hardwired into our...
- 56
Republicans only -define racism and name one or more racists.
by Lela Cargill 7 years ago
Paul Ryan stated that Trump's accusation of his Judge's bias due to his Mexican heritage was the very definition of racism, but he still supports the Republican nominee. Why can't he just call Trump a racist? And admit that racism is rampant in the Republican party.
- 7
Some White People, Think White People Are Inherently, Superior To Black People D
by VC L Veasey 8 years ago
Some White People, Think White People Are Inherently, Superior To Black People Do You Agree?
- 103
Boston mayor excludes White people from holiday party
by Readmikenow 4 months ago
Could this be considered institutional racism? The mayor isn't upset at this racism, she is upset the white elected members found out about it."Boston's Democratic mayor has apologized for causing offense with a holiday party invitation that excluded White people.Michelle Wu drew criticism...
- 105
Are You A Racist?
by fierycj 14 years ago
Well, are you? Let us all know. If you are, At least have the minerals to own up to it. If not let, let us know as well. And please, none of the phony remarks like, "I love black people." even if you mean it. otherwise, I'll just puke my guts out. And one thing, this involves all forms of...