Prejudice and Bigotry in Law Enforcement
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
"Duh" now that's an answer worthy of a Homer.
How did your life change with any of the past Presidents?
Last edited:
Civil rights. A certain amount of health reform. Did you miss the Obama years?
Ronald Reagan taught me that ketchup is a vegetable.
Presently, Donald Trump's refusal to reasonably address the Covid crisis affects us daily.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I learned about Freedom Fries but that's about it. It didn't really affect my life. Even Trump and the Covid crisis doesn't affect me since the Covid virus would be here in any event and I am mainly just going to the grocery store and out in the yard until it's over, Trump or not Trump.
What do you think about the "cancel" culture? Are you doing much "cancelling"? Maybe you're too old fashioned would you spell "woman" this way or "womxn"? Just trying to keep up with the times and "intersectionality".
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
privilege of financial privilege & isolation
it is extremely rare to have one of those who doesn't directly earn income from over seas trade which is paid for by working class taxes via government jobs to wine & dine foreign governments creating & negotiating tariffs & licenses to market access.
the extreme few who do not directly trade whom are in those communities, maintain their income off those who do
trades & services whos' clients & customers all earn income from foreign trades and markets
sad state of education
Agreed. Yet those neighborhoods persist. Some things don't disappear just because you eliminate the original causes.
Yep. And as a result, whites were given more favorable mortgage terms than blacks.
You are fortunate. I've had a good friend die, and a lot of my friends are now out of work. My parents in law are sheltering in place and haven't been outside in five months; they will likely die if they are infected.
It's great that you don't have any of those worries.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
part of the problem with un regulated markets and the nature of nepotistic profiteering mechanisms
amway
most other american pyramid business schemes
evangelical churches
pyramid schemes
ponsy schemes
usa is the global inventor
they rely on false favour nepotism to leverage the loss of quality or value
un picking that from basic xenophobia, racism and separatism is quite a hard task
more so when you have entire citys & national systems designed around reinforcing racial boundary self association with forced financial survival requiring adherence to those clubs groups & gangs
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
as soon as someone wins the usa presidency
their entire extended family start to show up over seas making huge trade deals ... and suddenly employed by the government
what is the example being set ?
who supports it ?
if that working example & system is not a direct management model defining social norms .. what is ?
it doesn't matter what political system you call it
you could call it clownface-ass-clownerrism
that does not suddenly change the way it is being run
managed or how it creates the systems underneath it which it dictates with policy and trade AND FINANCIAL control
their entire extended family start to show up over seas making huge trade deals ... and suddenly employed by the government
what is the example being set ?
who supports it ?
if that working example & system is not a direct management model defining social norms .. what is ?
it doesn't matter what political system you call it
you could call it clownface-ass-clownerrism
that does not suddenly change the way it is being run
managed or how it creates the systems underneath it which it dictates with policy and trade AND FINANCIAL control
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It's great that you are such a worrier about everyone else and yes, I'm concerned as well. I'm not that concerned about the government, who ever the government is.
Everyone has has good friends die as well. It's not pleasant but it has nothing to do with the government.
Wells Fargo hasn't been convicted of giving blacks worse rates than whites no matter how many times you repeat it.
Do you think the primary reason that blacks have less assets than whites is because of racism and is that based on you informing yourself of the history of how/when they came about?
Just looking at a graph you can see that it wasn't something that came about until the 80's and that's when interest rates started to come down, tax rates came down, the stock market went up and that's when the greater divergence took place. Is it your premise that racism was worse after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the civil rights laws of the 60's and suddenly in the 80's racism became a "thing"?
Those who were in the stock market and those who didn't own houses in the large cities with good economies didn't see the same gains. They were no worse off than before (including whites) but if they didn't buy stocks or real estate in those cities they didn't see those gains.
Race has little to do with it.
I am because it's really the only thing we can change.
By one estimate, 70,000 people would now be alive if the US had started shutdowns sooner. Instead we had happy talk about how it would "go away" real soon. So yes, it absolutely has something to do with the government.
If you want a comparison, compare Sweden to New Zealand.
?? Uh, not sure if you are following the conversation here, but I mentioned Wells Fargo exactly once, and it was taken from the article you yourself posted. I understand you may not like the article, but complaining about an article you yourself posted seems counterproductive.
Yes. It started centuries ago when blacks were brought to the US against their will and held to labor. It continued with government sanction of slavery until the 1860's. At that point the slaves were freed - but for the next century there were laws that kept black Americans poor and without the rights of whites. During that time there are plenty of examples of whites suppressing and murdering blacks who showed signs of success.
In the 1950's and 1960's that started to change with desegregation and Loving vs Virginia. Since then we have come a long way. But racism still exists; it's been demonstrated by Trump's housing policies, Wells-Fargo's policies and the disproportionate deaths of blacks at the hands of cops.
So yes, the primary reason that blacks see less success than whites is racism. PART of that is modern racism. But an even bigger part of that is historical racism.
What is the "it" you are referring to? Racism? Housing discrimination? If you think there was no racism or housing discrimination in the 1950's, all I can say is . . . read some history.
?? No, not at all. Not sure where you got that.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
you show great patience
possibly they have been indoctrinated with something conjured off the back of the failed social housing projects where no utilities or income was provided to black high rise apartments
no lifts
no electricity
no water
no income to pay for anything
left to fend for themselves
in the middle of the cold war when the government was selling its own children to buy the latest and greatest nuclear weapons
the black housing projects
were given no fire brigade service
no ambulance service
no police service
no income
they had to pay for water & electricity or it would be switched off
they were kept as a slave class lowest wage racial group to drive the engine Room of American workers wages low-income manual-labor & trade-labor
they were directly underfunded to maintain the social balance of the ruling class of industrialists
by criminalising and maintaining a control of low income wage rates to undermine social cohesion they managed to off set social culture to prevent the government from being democratically opposed
this put money & power directly into the hands of those doing it
it also built a system and social class that recognized that as the only possible social cultural reality
now you have generations of people built on that system of morality
Last edited:
I was replying to your "challenge" as posted, which was one particular article. If you want to change the subject, we're starting over.
The redlining of the past significantly reduced the house equity of black people today - the primary store of wealth in the bottom 2/3 of the economy.
Just as the well-documented racial discrimination of the present will affect the future for many, many years to come.
Banks do that frequently in the US, based on race. So do rental agencies, etc.
So do neighborhood pressure groups - some of them via terroristic threat.
You can tell them they are being illogical until you are blue in the face - racial bigots are not amenable to logic.
Apparently you want to ignore this entire "challenge" charade you set up.
Many of Reagan's policies "pointed" directly and consciously to racism, btw. The amplification of the effects of past racism (such as making school quality and college access more dependent on housing equity than it had been) was not even unconscious in its racial significance - the policy makers knew what they were doing.
A larger part of the accusation was that they were steered into both higher cost loans and higher cost houses (in various ways) than they would have been had they been white.
That has always been true in the US, of course - the deregulation of the banks and lax enforcement of remaining regulations merely amplified the effects of a still existent, still damaging, and still common feature of American life.
None of that was in the form of an argument. The article presented no arguments, as I noted above.
If you want to set up a different challenge, based on some other article, feel free.
1) They already have jobs, on top of the loans - they don't have time for another one, and school as well.
2) Very few "part time job on the weekends" pay even one thousand dollars a month takehome - let alone 3000. You aren't paying much attention to reality in general, but that was kind of silly.
Again: new challenge, start over.
(It goes to about 11/1, btw - https://www.thebalance.com/racial-wealth-gap-in-united-states-4169678 you sure you want to posit that as evidence of racial equality?)
As noted, the major flaw there in that article is the use of household wealth rather than individual. That hides the true size of the gap, which is larger than 16/1.
It is largely a consequence of racism, in point of fact. But that's all irrelevant - Again: this whole challenge thing was your setup, not mine. If you want to talk about something other than that article, start over.
What, exactly, is not logical or factual about a simple description of a situation that anyone can see in front of them?
No, it doesn't. It documents the fact that they are still significantly affected by past discrimination, not that they are immune from present discrimination.
The default assumption would be that present discrimination will have significant effects on the future. Anything else faces a large burden of proof.
- - - -
Uh, duh? You do realize that AGW, Covid, degraded water and air, diseases and other bad stuff in food, and being sent to war, affect people whether they follow "the media" or not, yes? You aren't going to go Schmelzer on us and claim that what you don't know about doesn't affect you, I hope.
An extra 70,000 Americans have died this year due to the specifically Republican response to Covid19, for example. I don't know whether they "followed the media" or not - does watching the Hallmark Channel count?
Yes, it does.
All of the deaths among my friends, and about a third of the deaths in my immediate family, were consequences of partisan Republican governmental policies.
You keep saying that, Seattle. What measure are you using to conclude that the US is not a "racist nation"? What even makes a nation racist, according to you? Can you give any examples of racist nations, using your preferred measure?
I'm grappling with an issue concerning moderation right now and thought it might be worth airing the issue in the public forums. Possibly this thread isn't the place to do this, and if that turns out to be the case I might well move related discussion to its own thread in Site Feedback. But for now, I'll post here because this is one thread where the issue has come up.
There's a bit of a debate going on among the moderators as to whether Seattle should be subject to some kind of moderation sanction for advancing "supremacist" views in this thread.
I get it that Seattle is a bit racist. I do wonder whether it's more of an unconscious, ingrained, learned racism or more of a considered choice he has made. His views have been described, elsewhere, as "supremacist". Obviously so, according to some.
I also get that a lot of people in the thread are understandably upset because Seattle apparently doesn't "see" why (or that) the US has a racism problem. The question is whether moderators ought to step in at some point in this discussion if we disagree stridently with Seattle's stance in the thread. Does Seattle's line of argument, such as it is, in fact amount to a kind of "supremacist trolling"?
Is Seattle advocating for white supremacy? (I'm inclined to say no, but maybe I'm wrong.) Is he saying racism in the United States is good or preferable? I'm not seeing that explicitly, although I can understand how some might take that as the implicit message of Seattle's posts. I'm seeing ignorance, mainly. Seattle obviously has no clue about what he's talking about when it comes to racial inequality, and apparently doesn't want to learn anything either. But neither of those things automatically make him a troll or a supremacist, as far as I can tell.
Opinions? Advice? How do you think we should deal with this kind of thing, if at all, from a moderation point of view?
There's a bit of a debate going on among the moderators as to whether Seattle should be subject to some kind of moderation sanction for advancing "supremacist" views in this thread.
I get it that Seattle is a bit racist. I do wonder whether it's more of an unconscious, ingrained, learned racism or more of a considered choice he has made. His views have been described, elsewhere, as "supremacist". Obviously so, according to some.
I also get that a lot of people in the thread are understandably upset because Seattle apparently doesn't "see" why (or that) the US has a racism problem. The question is whether moderators ought to step in at some point in this discussion if we disagree stridently with Seattle's stance in the thread. Does Seattle's line of argument, such as it is, in fact amount to a kind of "supremacist trolling"?
Is Seattle advocating for white supremacy? (I'm inclined to say no, but maybe I'm wrong.) Is he saying racism in the United States is good or preferable? I'm not seeing that explicitly, although I can understand how some might take that as the implicit message of Seattle's posts. I'm seeing ignorance, mainly. Seattle obviously has no clue about what he's talking about when it comes to racial inequality, and apparently doesn't want to learn anything either. But neither of those things automatically make him a troll or a supremacist, as far as I can tell.
Opinions? Advice? How do you think we should deal with this kind of thing, if at all, from a moderation point of view?
I don't see Seattle as a white supremacist and/or troll, but I'm curious as to why he doesn't see racism as pervasive in the US? Has that been discussed? I haven't read through this thread in its entirety but it seems like his perception of life is that everyone is handed a certain deck of cards, so to speak, and it’s what you do with that deck that matters. Just from my observation, he may feel that racism exists but everyone has obstacles to overcome so if you want a quality life (whatever that means), you need to work for it. He seems to look at racism as an excuse. That’s just my perception from skimming through his posts in this thread.
If you have never struggled with discrimination/racism/sexism etc on a personal level, you might not be able to empathize with those who have gone through it.
That said, I don’t see him as advocating for white supremacy or a right wing racist. If he were advocating for white supremacy or preaching that he has a right to be a racist for example, then banning such a member would seem fair.
If you have never struggled with discrimination/racism/sexism etc on a personal level, you might not be able to empathize with those who have gone through it.
That said, I don’t see him as advocating for white supremacy or a right wing racist. If he were advocating for white supremacy or preaching that he has a right to be a racist for example, then banning such a member would seem fair.
Last edited:
There's been plenty of times when I've seen someone express an opinion I consider absolutely pathetic, and I've almost wished at times to see people sanctioned or banned for it, but I think it's better for the public discourse to allow everyone to express their personal/paid opinions, and debunk them accordingly in order to innoculate the general public from them. What I'd like to see the mods do more of however is to sanction people if they're consistently posting rubbish just to distract from the conversation, and also people who frequently repeat the same points after they've already been rebutted without adequately addressing the rebuttals.
Like when Schmelzer would post some Russian government propaganda, dismiss everything else as American propaganda, and then continue repeating the same points over and over. Shutting down his Kremlin blog where all he was doing is gloating about how America can't/won't stop Russia from trashing Syria, is an example of a great and much appreciated move from the mods.
Bells
Staff member
If someone suggests that black people change their names to that of white people if they really want to get a job or get into college, as though refusing to do that is somehow a failing of that black person.. Neither of you see that as advocating that white people are somehow better or superior?
How about the repeated stereotyping of black women as being promiscious, alluding to black people and black men being more violent, etc.. None of this reeks of white supremacism to either of you?
Or better yet, when that someone praises segregation because apparently black people were better off segregated, that isn't white supremacy?
Because as a person of colour, when I see two white people try to gloss over the utter racist and white supremacist shite that Seattle has posted here as being just a "bit racist", I literally guffawed..
James and Wegs, if you don't think praising racial segregation, stereotyping black people, suggesting black people change their names to more "white" sounding names to get into college because you know, white names is better, is not pushing white supremacism, then really, what do you both think would qualify?I
How about the repeated stereotyping of black women as being promiscious, alluding to black people and black men being more violent, etc.. None of this reeks of white supremacism to either of you?
Or better yet, when that someone praises segregation because apparently black people were better off segregated, that isn't white supremacy?
Because as a person of colour, when I see two white people try to gloss over the utter racist and white supremacist shite that Seattle has posted here as being just a "bit racist", I literally guffawed..
James and Wegs, if you don't think praising racial segregation, stereotyping black people, suggesting black people change their names to more "white" sounding names to get into college because you know, white names is better, is not pushing white supremacism, then really, what do you both think would qualify?I
The question is whether the white supremacist views are pushed from a position of hate or a position of ignorance. I think hate shouldn't be tolerated, however ignorance should be tolerated to the extent that the ignorant are willing to question their own views and learn from others when relevant facts are presented.