Texas State newspaper fires student author of anti-white column

Ana the Ist said:

It seems a rather important point...to be able to understand what each person means whenever they say something.

Click to expand...

Not to mention some people will twist the definition of words for ideological purposes.

I can accept the ‘racism = systemic racism’ line as A definition of racism. I refuse to be told that it is THE definition of racism, because it’s not, certainly not the only one.

It’s a very particular academic (if that) definition of the term that has taken on a life of its own outside a classroom, which ideologues are seeking to push as the only definition of the term and memory hole the conventional and *more commonplace* one.

I distinctly remember, as I’ve said before, in the UK we used to make the distinction explicit between ‘racism’ and ‘institutionalised racism’. The latter is your systemic variety, but it’s obvious from the construction that it’s considered a special case of the general problem. It was usually taken a lot more seriously than common or garden racism, but the sort of crap in this piece would also considered racist, without all these lame excuses flying around that oh it’s not really racism when it’s against whites because reasons.

The revisionists are trying to do the equivalent of redefining ‘theft’ so it only applies when you’ve had over £10,000 stolen. It makes no sense, it’s pretending that a quantitative difference is a qualitative one.

Not only that, we’re told that trivial non issues like saying ‘America is a land of opportunity’ are racist microaggressions and could you not, I can’t even - but saying stuff like this has absolutely no consequences worth noting? Come off it. If you’re going to police nanoaggressions, do so consistently. They’re about as impactful as each other at that scale.

Ana the Ist said:

I'm not entirely sure Fire understands that "systemic" is just a type of racism...and one that really has nothing to do with the definition of racism.

Click to expand...

Ditto. It’s never apparent that their definition of racism is thought of as A definition of racism, rather it is always presented as THE definition of racism.

FireDragon76 said:

The language he used is hyperbolic, but it's clear he was aiming for sensationalism more than anything. Beneath the hostile language are some kernels of truth, particularly about killing other cultures. The history doesn't exactly argue with that.

The overall tone is more sophomoric, perhaps even a mishandled sense of irony, than genuinely threatening.

Click to expand...

I had no idea there was such, er, what was it, “sensationalism, kernels of truth, hyperbole and sophomoric irony’ on stormfront.

Great excuse kid

FireDragon76 said:

Racism in the US is a loaded term that generally refers to systematic racism.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t. Maybe to socjus, but not to normal people.

Systematic racism has to do with oppression based on perceived race that is pervasive in a society, that no individual is necessarily uniquely responsible for. It's more than one individuals prejudices.

Click to expand...

Lol right, it’s got nothing to do with individuals. That’ll be why we keep seeing people’s lives ruined over one racist remark. What crap.

You know there’s a balance between thinking whites have done nothing wrong, and accepting being spoken to in a way no other race in this society would tolerate, for things that all civilisations are guilty of to some degree? Why on earth should we take things coming from this crowd seriously when they have no consistency whatsoever? That’s what equality IS.

You might hate yourself for being white, but please don’t insist that every other white person has to be as pathetic as you.

essentialsaltes said:

Certainly it exists today. For instance, numerous banks have been caught redlining in recent years, i.e. not offering mortgages to minorities based solely on their minority status (and not their financial status).

Click to expand...

Well, technically redlining is the practice of not lending to people in certain suburbs (from the practice of drawing a red line on a map). From the bank's point of view, this is because property values in those suburbs are decreasing, which means that, de facto, the mortgage is really an unsecured loan.

Redlining has been illegal for a while (banks are obligated to just take the risk), but there's a strong temptation to work around the rules.

essentialsaltes said:

Of course not, that was ruled unconstitutional in University of California v Bakke in 1978.

Click to expand...

So why do so many American colleges set quotas on Asian students (just like, in previous decades, they set Jewish quotas)? Why is there ongoing litigation? Why this chart?

Radagast said:

So why do so many American colleges set quotas on Asian students (just like, in previous decades, they set Jewish quotas)? Why is there ongoing litigation? Why this chart?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess I was thinking more of public schools, having gone to the University of Caucasians Lost among Asians (at least, that's what the students of the University of Spoiled Children called us).

I think the Supreme Court ruling does still apply to private schools, as long as they take federal money. So if these private Ivy League schools have illegal quotas, it could well be an example of systemic racism.

essentialsaltes said:

Certainly it exists today. For instance, numerous banks have been caught redlining in recent years, i.e. not offering mortgages to minorities based solely on their minority status (and not their financial status).

This is an institutional policy and practice of the economic structure.

Click to expand...

Have any of those accusations in that article been proven? That would be interesting no doubt! The article is from 2015, and I would assume the investigations in question have been completed.

When you click the link they supplied? You are forwarded to some website in which they want you to pay for their information.

essentialsaltes said:

Sorry, I guess I was thinking more of public schools, having gone to the University of Caucasians Lost among Asians (at least, that's what the students of the University of Spoiled Children called us).

Click to expand...

I had to think hard about that one.

essentialsaltes said:

I think the Supreme Court ruling does still apply to private schools, as long as they take federal money. So if these private Ivy League schools have illegal quotas, it could well be an example of systemic racism.

Click to expand...

Oh the Supreme Court ruling does indeed still apply. Colleges like Harvard believe that the way they've done things falls within the letter of the law. A whole bunch of Asian students disagree. Litigation has been going on for years, and the DOJ recently stepped in. I assume that it will all wind up in the Supreme Court eventually.

essentialsaltes said:

So if these private Ivy League schools have illegal quotas, it could well be an example of systemic racism.

Click to expand...

It seems to me to be systemic racism whichever way the legal battle finally goes. That is, it seems to me to be an immoral, systematic disadvantaging of Asians, whether or not it's technically legal. But that's a purely personal viewpoint.

Radagast said:

Well, technically redlining is the practice of not lending to people in certain suburbs (from the practice of drawing a red line on a map). From the bank's point of view, this is because property values in those suburbs are decreasing, which means that, de facto, the mortgage is really an unsecured loan.

Redlining has been illegal for a while (banks are obligated to just take the risk), but there's a strong temptation to work around the rules.

Click to expand...

And there's the fact that if you throw a whole lot of bank loan data at a "deep learning" system on a computer, the computer automatically learns that the best way to avoid risk is to "redline." It's incredibly hard to stop it from doing so.

"starting a conversation and outing racists."

Look in the mirror. You are the racist.

Gadarene said:

Not to mention some people will twist the definition of words for ideological purposes.

I can accept the ‘racism = systemic racism’ line as A definition of racism. I refuse to be told that it is THE definition of racism, because it’s not, certainly not the only one.

It’s a very particular academic (if that) definition of the term that has taken on a life of its own outside a classroom, which ideologues are seeking to push as the only definition of the term and memory hole the conventional and *more commonplace* one.

Click to expand...

Indeed, while I've looked into the basis for the "new" definition...I can't seem to find a reason for it. It's certainly not more useful, nor is it more accurate...so why change it at all?

Academics at least have the feeble excuse of latching onto what's popular in their circles. The average person who buys into the new definition, I can only assume, does so for one of two reasons.

To excuse their racist attitudes towards whites...and it's there that you often here the claim "it's not racism, it's just prejudice" as if prejudice attitudes toward an entire race are something of no real consequence.

The other is simply an attempt to signal one's virtue...and get a pat on the back for being a good white person.

I distinctly remember, as I’ve said before, in the UK we used to make the distinction explicit between ‘racism’ and ‘institutionalised racism’. The latter is your systemic variety, but it’s obvious from the construction that it’s considered a special case of the general problem. It was usually taken a lot more seriously than common or garden racism, but the sort of crap in this piece would also considered racist, without all these lame excuses flying around that oh it’s not really racism when it’s against whites because reasons.

The revisionists are trying to do the equivalent of redefining ‘theft’ so it only applies when you’ve had over £10,000 stolen. It makes no sense, it’s pretending that a quantitative difference is a qualitative one.

Click to expand...

I can only imagine that attempt to change "theft" is just an excuse to permit looting.

Not only that, we’re told that trivial non issues like saying ‘America is a land of opportunity’ are racist microaggressions and could you not, I can’t even - but saying stuff like this has absolutely no consequences worth noting? Come off it. If you’re going to police nanoaggressions, do so consistently. They’re about as impactful as each other at that scale.

Click to expand...

Indeed, one of the first things I noticed about so many sjws here in the states is that sort of blind hypocrisy of the importance of words. They'll tell you how important it is to use the correct "gender pronoun" when addressing someone, and that similar micro aggressions deny people their "agency" and are slights which should never be tolerated.

Yet in the very next breath, they'll state a multitude of racist things about whites, starting with "white privilege" and how all the achievements of whites are less than those of people of color because "obstacles"...yet the moment someone objects they've become a "crybaby" guilty of "white fragility"...as if the entire white race should be calmly accepting of all the racism thrown their way.

Radagast said:

And there's the fact that if you throw a whole lot of bank loan data at a "deep learning" system on a computer, the computer automatically learns that the best way to avoid risk is to "redline." It's incredibly hard to stop it from doing so.

Click to expand...

If you followed the link provided...you might have noticed that those cases all took place during the worst housing crisis in the history of anyone alive. I'm not claiming, of course, that excuses denying blacks what a bank would permit whites...but it's worth keeping in mind whenever someone talks about how these things are "institutional". Extraordinary circumstances sometimes bring out the worst in people....but it's not as if these behaviors are institutional.

The rest of the examples are, quite frankly, fabricated. A predatory loan isn't something someone is forced into...and all races are guilty of accepting them. If one race, for whatever reason, happens to accept them more often...perhaps it would be more useful to find out why that race is more likely to wear the yoke of unbearable debt than others.

As for "reverse redlining" and "Facebook redlining"...those aren't real things. They're invented buzzwords used to push a narrative.

Ana the Ist said:

If you followed the link provided...

Click to expand...

I didn't provide any link; you are confusing me with somebody else.

Banks are, by and large, not racist at all (although they might have racist staff). If banks can collect interest payments at an acceptable risk level, they will lend you money (because banks are all about money, and all money has the same colour).

In the practice known as "redlining," banks have rational reasons for not lending money: in certain areas of certain cities, the risk of default is high, and depreciating housing values mean that the loan is effectively unsecured (that is, the bank will lose money even if they foreclose).

US governments have deemed redlining to be racist, and forbidden it (because the redlined areas are often majority-black). But my point was that, because redlining is actually rational, computers (which pretty much can't be racist) will sometimes do it anyway, if you let the computers make the decisions.

And changing property values in the US can be fairly dramatic. Consider Detroit, for example. In 2006, with property prices on the way down, should a bank have lent $60,000 to someone in Detroit to buy a house? Would it have been criminal negligence to do so, or criminal racism to refuse?

Looking at actual evidence of declining housing values is one thing, but to assume just because a neighborhood is black, it's going to be going down in value is a kind of racist thinking that policymakers were objecting to.

Radagast said:

I didn't provide any link; you are confusing me with somebody else.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the link essential provided on the previous page. Sorry, I should've been more specific.

Banks are, by and large, not racist at all (although they might have racist staff). If banks can collect interest payments at an acceptable risk level, they will lend you money (because banks are all about money, and all money has the same colour).

In the practice known as "redlining," banks have rational reasons for not lending money: in certain areas of certain cities, the risk of default is high, and depreciating housing values mean that the loan is effectively unsecured (that is, the bank will lose money even if they foreclose).

US governments have deemed redlining to be racist, and forbidden it (because the redlined areas are often majority-black). But my point was that, because redlining is actually rational, computers (which pretty much can't be racist) will sometimes do it anyway, if you let the computers make the decisions.

And changing property values in the US can be fairly dramatic. Consider Detroit, for example. In 2006, with property prices on the way down, should a bank have lent $60,000 to someone in Detroit to buy a house? Would it have been criminal negligence to do so, or criminal racism to refuse?

Click to expand...

I tend to agree...and I don't think it's likely we'd find a policy anywhere that states "don't lend money to credit worthy blacks".

Radagast said:

US governments have deemed redlining to be racist, and forbidden it (because the redlined areas are often majority-black). But my point was that, because redlining is actually rational, computers (which pretty much can't be racist) will sometimes do it anyway, if you let the computers make the decisions.

Click to expand...

Case in point: these companies use loan-approval algorithms that reduce risk to the banks (i.e. lower default rates) and reduce interest rates for the customers. How do they do that? using geolocation from the applicant's phone. Is that legal in the US? No, because of anti-redlining laws.

Ana the Ist said:

I tend to agree...and I don't think it's likely we'd find a policy anywhere that states "don't lend money to credit worthy blacks".

Click to expand...

The whole "redlining" thing was never about "lending to blacks." It was about banks giving an automatic "no" to loan applications from certain regions that just happened to be majority-black.

That was deemed to be racist, and has produced regulation that says US banks must say "yes" to a loan application unless they can give a non-racist reason for saying "no."

From a computer-technology point of view, that's spawned a whole lot of research on machine learning algorithms that can explain what they do.

But of course, if you plot the computer-generated non-racist decisions on a map, they will often produce patterns that look a lot like "redlining." Because lending money to people to buy houses in areas of urban decay just isn't a smart business decision.

Radagast said:

The whole "redlining" thing was never about "lending to blacks." It was about banks giving an automatic "no" to loan applications from certain regions that just happened to be majority-black.

That was deemed to be racist, and has produced regulation that says US banks must say "yes" to a loan application unless they can give a non-racist reason for saying "no."

From a computer-technology point of view, that's spawned a whole lot of research on machine learning algorithms that can explain what they do.

But of course, if you plot the computer-generated non-racist decisions on a map, they will often produce patterns that look a lot like "redlining." Because lending money to people to buy houses in areas of urban decay just isn't a smart business decision.

Click to expand...

You sound like you're in the business. To me, and I imagine a majority of people, it's a bit of a mystery.

For example, it's not hard to find data that shows blacks have a harder time getting loans...even if they have the same creditworthiness as whites. What is hard to find out...is why. Those same articles jump to the conclusion that "it must be racism"...yet as you pointed out, banks care about money first, all other things are secondary, so it's hard to imagine that racism is the actual problem.