New York Magazine: Donald Trump’s Race War

[StevenBelievin]

New York Magazine = Garbage Can

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm using the word "abuse" in a broad sense. Redlining is abuse. Systemic disinvestment is abuse. Racial profiling by police is abuse.

Were you also using the words "beat" and "murder" in a broad sense as well? Or are you willing to admit we aren't systematically murdering or beating anyone?

As for redlining....where in the U.S. are blacks and other minorities not allowed to live?

I'm guessing you meant to say "divestment"...but I'm afraid I'll need an example of what you mean before I can respond.

As for racial profiling, I can't say it doesn't happen, but I also can't say it happens to the extent that it's setting an entire race back.

How quickly after prohibition was enacted did alcohol disappear? How long did it take for heroine and crack to be eradicated once banned? Kiddy inappropriate content?

Oh, right.

I don't really need to explain why these are really really dumb comparisons...do I? No one has a chemical dependency on racial discrimination lol....nor is it a sexual compulsion.

The fact that racial discrimination in hiring was finally made illegal in the mid 60's doesn't mean that it automatically went away. If you want a clear example of gender bias existing long after the civil rights law was passed:

No...I don't think entirely disappeared, nor would I ever expect it to....some people will always be racist/bigoted.

Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians

Once orchestras started holding blind auditions where judges were unable to determine the gender of the performer, the number of women they hired grew significantly. But this didn't start until some years after discrimination became illegal. And it's something of a quirk of that industry that they can even consider hiring people without speaking to them or seeing them. If that sort of discrimination continued to exist in the music world after it became illegal, what makes you think similar biases don't continue to manifest themselves in other workplaces?

I'm sure they do sometimes....that's life. We can't practically make every interview blind...appearance is a reasonable factor in many many jobs.

No. I was talking to Tull. I'm white; I assume he's white. In addressing each other, neither of us was talking to the individual in question. We were talking about some hypothetical "other", and there was much in Tull's language that was directed towards a group.

Ahhh....the "hypothetical other". My mistake.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your knowledge on this subject is incorrect. They didn't say they stopped me for "being Mexican", but that's the unofficial reason since there was only a fabricated reason for the stop. The officer could defend his racial profiling by claiming "I couldn't see the driver's race at night" - a true statement, but targeting a Mexican neighborhood for random stops is definitely racial profiling.

Oh I see....it couldn't have been that your vehicle matched or was similar to a suspect vehicle in a robbery/drug deal/ etc. It couldn't be he frequently catches drunk drivers on that road after dark. Nope....it had to be because he thought you were a mexican! Cuz all cops are racist!

I mean sure he couldn't tell what race you were when he stopped you, and he didn't ask any immigration questions...but that's because you got the white guy pass!

You should quit your job, and go work for the courts as a mind reader. You can tell which defendants are lying and telling the truth, and which cops are racist!

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Also, it's really not up for debate whether or not there were immigration patrols in the Phoenix metro area.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face criminal charges for immigration patrols

PHOENIX — Prosecutors said Tuesday they will charge Sheriff Joe Arpaio with criminal contempt-of-court for defying a judge’s orders to end his signature immigration patrols in Arizona, exposing the 84-year-old lawman to the possibility of jail time.

You know the part of that law which requires cops to check immigration was struck down by the supreme court....right?

 

[Rion]

There is anti-white sentiment and there is anti white-SUPREMACY sentiment

True. However, the moment one starts telling people that they have a privilege based on their skin color they have gone from anti supremacy to simply anti.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"We" legally sanctioned it and openly engaged in it until the 60's, at which point it became illegal but didn't go away. Redlining still happens. Abuse by law enforcement still happens. Disinvestment by city officials still happens.

You keep saying it...but without examples, I have no idea what you're talking about...and I've looked into it.

As for abuse by police, it's not unique to the black community. That doesn't justify it, but it doesn't make it a cause of the black community's current situation.

This was only a few decades ago. I'm only 35, but my parents were in high school when it became illegal to not hire someone because of the color of their skin. I can personally tie loads of things about my current situation to stuff that happened "back then", and I've spent a fair amount of energy deliberately trying to correct some of my parents' mistakes, and I didn't even have anything really bad to get over.

You're missing my point. When we look at a young black man in a poor community, it's easy to say that the reason for his situation is because his grandfather got redlined 40 years ago....and that's the narrative when we look at everything through the prism of "white privilege". That narrative doesn't take into account the fact that his daddy went to jail for selling crack when he was 6. Does that play a role in how his current situation looks? I'm not saying that every poor black kid has a crack dealing father....but looking at these complex situations and saying "it's because of white privilege/supremacy/racism" is not only ignorant...it's stupid.

I think it depends on who you're talking to and what you're talking about. If you're addressing an individual, then yeah - you can look at ways they can help themselves. But if you're drawing conclusions about a population, I don't think it's terribly helpful, particularly if you're holding that population to a higher standard than you hold other groups.

Maybe you don't understand the principles this nation was founded on...but we protect individual rights. We provide opportunities for individual achievement. We strive for the equality of individuals under the law.

What we don't do is say, "how can we raise up this group of people?" The U.S. doesn't promise you something for being white, black, brown, male or female, etc....it promises you something for being human, and that's how it should be.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Were you also using the words "beat" and "murder" in a broad sense as well?

No.

Or are you willing to admit we aren't systematically murdering or beating anyone?

I wouldn't say that we're systematically murdering people, but I would argue that the threshold for what's treated as a justifiable reason for shooting someone is often disturbingly low.

Regarding beatings, in some places, yeah, it seems like that's still going on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/...ues-at-an-alarming-rate-report-says.html?_r=0

As for redlining....where in the U.S. are blacks and other minorities not allowed to live?

They're allowed to live anywhere (now, anyways - that wasn't always the case). But there are still mechanism available for filtering out the undesirables, whereby you can use proxies such as zoning restrictions to allow a neighborhood to "maintain its character."

I'm guessing you meant to say "divestment"...but I'm afraid I'll need an example of what you mean before I can respond.

Underfunding schools, reduced city services, etc. A common complaint about gentrification is that a city often won't put any money into fixing up a poor neighborhood until the wealthier (often white) hipsters start moving in.

As for racial profiling, I can't say it doesn't happen, but I also can't say it happens to the extent that it's setting an entire race back.

It's enough to set back a neighborhood, or even an entire city, isn't it?

I don't really need to explain why these are really really dumb comparisons...do I? No one has a chemical dependency on racial discrimination lol....nor is it a sexual compulsion.

Do I really need to explain why your original contention that "discriminatory hiring practices haven't stopped anyone under 60 (roughly) from getting a job" is also really, really dumb? I mean, I think you're a smart guy and I genuinely enjoy reading most of your posts, so that one really made my jaw drop.

I'm sure they do sometimes....that's life. We can't practically make every interview blind...appearance is a reasonable factor in many many jobs.

Right, which is why it's silly to think that race stopped being a hiring factor as soon as it was outlawed.

You're missing my point. When we look at a young black man in a poor community, it's easy to say that the reason for his situation is because his grandfather got redlined 40 years ago....and that's the narrative when we look at everything through the prism of "white privilege". That narrative doesn't take into account the fact that his daddy went to jail for selling crack when he was 6. Does that play a role in how his current situation looks? I'm not saying that every poor black kid has a crack dealing father....but looking at these complex situations and saying "it's because of white privilege/supremacy/racism" is not only ignorant...it's stupid.

I fully understand your point, but I think you're missing mine.

On the subject of white privilege: why was that father selling crack? Was he an evil guy looking to exploit his customers? Or was he just looking for a way to make money in an area with high unemployment and few job opportunities? Why was he that neighborhood in the first place? Was it because his father got redlined into a bad neighborhood? Why didn't he have the education needed to improve his situation? Is it because his parents were denied an education outright, and because he was shunted into a poor school? Why did he get 10 years for selling crack when a white guy across town got 6 months of probation for selling powder cocaine? (This assumes he was actually selling crack and that it wasn't planted on him.)

Yes, these situations are complex, but so are everybody's - and ignoring the factors that affect all of us is not only ignorant...it's stupid. My contention is that most of us aren't that special and that, put in his place, most of us wouldn't have done much better. For a lot of us, our starting conditions were better.

Maybe you don't understand the principles this nation was founded on...but we protect individual rights. We provide opportunities for individual achievement. We strive for the equality of individuals under the law.

What we don't do is say, "how can we raise up this group of people?" The U.S. doesn't promise you something for being white, black, brown, male or female, etc....it promises you something for being human, and that's how it should be.

I'm not really sure how our founding principles are relevant to the discussion. I was referring to how we describe and interact with people. If you're describing an individual or interacting with that individual, then it could be perfectly appropriate to identify particular things within their life upon which they can improve. But IMO, if you expand the scope of your discussion to a group, then you have to start looking at systemic issues. Are all of these people lazy/unmotivated/etc? Or are there other, systemic factors at work contributing to the problem, possibly even incentivizing certain negative behaviors?

But for the sake of argument, let's roll with what you brought up. Maybe the US promises you something for being "human", but it often doesn't deliver. Race issues aside, it's quite obvious that being wealthy provides more "equality under the law" than does being poor. Not only are effective lawyers often only available to the wealthy, but civil penalties are often structured in a way that wealthy folks may experience little more than a minor nuisance while poor people can have their lives ruined.

We Americans like to talk a good game about equality of opportunity, but the reality is that it's often little more than propaganda. If there were substance to it, then our economic mobility stats wouldn't be so poor. AFAIK, there's some disagreement on whether we're a lot worse than other industrialized countries or just a little worse, but I'm not aware of anybody who knows what they're talking about who claims we're doing appreciably better than our peer nations. Given how much we talk about America as the land of opportunity, we ought to be at least a little better than those European socialists, no?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No.

Ok.

I wouldn't say that we're systematically murdering people, but I would argue that the threshold for what's treated as a justifiable reason for shooting someone is often disturbingly low.

Well, we live in a nation where the threshold for carrying a gun is disturbingly low. Those two things are likely to go hand in hand.

Regarding beatings, in some places, yeah, it seems like that's still going on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/...ues-at-an-alarming-rate-report-says.html?_r=0

So your example of a system which "beats" minorities is a prison where "the officers sustained more injuries than the inmates" over the course of a year?

I don't want any prison guards to be abusing inmates...but let's not pretend like their job is a cakewalk. Prison guards are humans too...and when you're supposed to keep control over a group of criminals who are trying to hurt you daily, it shouldn't be too difficult to see how even minor situations can get out of hand quickly.

They're allowed to live anywhere (now, anyways - that wasn't always the case). But there are still mechanism available for filtering out the undesirables, whereby you can use proxies such as zoning restrictions to allow a neighborhood to "maintain its character."

You're saying that "zoning restrictions" can include "no black people"? I've honestly never heard this...but if you have any examples I'd like to see it.

Underfunding schools, reduced city services, etc.

Aren't these things usually paid for by taxes?

A common complaint about gentrification is that a city often won't put any money into fixing up a poor neighborhood until the wealthier (often white) hipsters start moving in.

Uh huh...it's almost as if there's a relationship between the amount of money a community contributes to the local government, and how much that government contributes to the local community. I'm shocked.

Just out of curiosity, how should it work? Should everyone get the same stuff regardless of how much they make?

It's enough to set back a neighborhood, or even an entire city, isn't it?

Possibly? I can't say I've seen a study on it..."racial profiling" is notoriously difficult to prove.

Do I really need to explain why your original contention that "discriminatory hiring practices haven't stopped anyone under 60 (roughly) from getting a job" is also really, really dumb? I mean, I think you're a smart guy and I genuinely enjoy reading most of your posts, so that one really made my jaw drop.

I'll admit I worded it poorly. I should've said that racial discrimination isn't a significant factor in hiring. You're 35....so you should remember the same things I do. You should remember back in the late 80s and all through the 90s when businesses were getting called out for not having enough minorities working for them and the subsequent scramble to hire as many minorities as possible. Hiring a black man? That's good for public image. Hiring a jewish black man? Even better. Hiring a jewish black woman? You probably deserve some kind of humanitarian award.

Right, which is why it's silly to think that race stopped being a hiring factor as soon as it was outlawed.

I imagine that to many small businesses, it made little difference. Any big businesses though, it made a huge difference. Better to hire as many minorities as possible than suffer a discrimination lawsuit and the accompanying public relations nightmare.

I fully understand your point, but I think you're missing mine.

On the subject of white privilege: why was that father selling crack? Was he an evil guy looking to exploit his customers? Or was he just looking for a way to make money in an area with high unemployment and few job opportunities?

Can you even acknowledge that it's his choice to sell crack? That many many people, both white and non white, were facing the exact same situations he was and didn't choose to sell crack?

This is the problem with the "white privilege" narrative...at no point are any non-whites responsible for their behavior. They're all just victims of circumstances that evil whites have inflicted upon them.

Why was he that neighborhood in the first place? Was it because his father got redlined into a bad neighborhood? Why didn't he have the education needed to improve his situation? Is it because his parents were denied an education outright, and because he was shunted into a poor school? Why did he get 10 years for selling crack when a white guy across town got 6 months of probation for selling powder cocaine? (This assumes he was actually selling crack and that it wasn't planted on him.)

Do you really want answers to all those questions?

Yes, these situations are complex, but so are everybody's - and ignoring the factors that affect all of us is not only ignorant...it's stupid. My contention is that most of us aren't that special and that, put in his place, most of us wouldn't have done much better. For a lot of us, our starting conditions were better.

If they aren't responsible for their circumstances...why should I be held responsible for mine? If I'm "born into privilege" what's the bottom line? Should I be giving my wealth to those less fortunate? Should we be easing the standards/expectations of those less fortunate compared to those more fortunate? What exactly are we striving for here?

I'm not really sure how our founding principles are relevant to the discussion. I was referring to how we describe and interact with people. If you're describing an individual or interacting with that individual, then it could be perfectly appropriate to identify particular things within their life upon which they can improve. But IMO, if you expand the scope of your discussion to a group, then you have to start looking at systemic issues. Are all of these people lazy/unmotivated/etc? Or are there other, systemic factors at work contributing to the problem, possibly even incentivizing certain negative behaviors?

Why do you immediately jump to individual characteristics when describing a "group" of people? I never said anything about "lazy" or anything like it. If we're talking about a group....aren't we automatically talking about cultural characteristics?

If I showed you a statistic that claimed that on average, blacks spent 30% more of their income than any other group, how would you characterize that fact? That blacks aren't "thrifty"? That they don't plan for the long term? Or would you say it's a cultural difference?

But for the sake of argument, let's roll with what you brought up. Maybe the US promises you something for being "human", but it often doesn't deliver. Race issues aside, it's quite obvious that being wealthy provides more "equality under the law" than does being poor. Not only are effective lawyers often only available to the wealthy, but civil penalties are often structured in a way that wealthy folks may experience little more than a minor nuisance while poor people can have their lives ruined.

You're right, society isn't perfect. Wealth does afford one many advantages that poverty doesn't. Welcome to the world.

We Americans like to talk a good game about equality of opportunity, but the reality is that it's often little more than propaganda. If there were substance to it, then our economic mobility stats wouldn't be so poor. AFAIK, there's some disagreement on whether we're a lot worse than other industrialized countries or just a little worse, but I'm not aware of anybody who knows what they're talking about who claims we're doing appreciably better than our peer nations. Given how much we talk about America as the land of opportunity, we ought to be at least a little better than those European socialists, no?

It's a trade off...I'll be the first to admit it's a poor trade off. Here in the U.S....there's no limit to how high you can rise, how wealthy you can become, yet very very few will ever achieve that. Similarly, the depths to which you can sink are also very low....and a great many will reach them.

We could trade these things away. We could place a limit to how high you can rise....and raise up the bottom of how low you can sink. We wouldn't be the U.S. anymore though...so I'd keep that in mind when you make your arguments.

 

[camille70]

And now MTV plays a dearth of black artists....at such a rate that they probably far exceed the percentage of blacks in the population. We're talking about a problem that exists now...so let's use examples from now...otherwise it ends up looking like you want people to answer for the mistakes of others in the past, and that's something that no one is willing to do.

Is this recent enough?

The city of Philadelphia sued Wells Fargo on Monday for allegedly discriminating against minority home buyers.

The complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by “steering” minority borrowers into mortgages that were more expensive and riskier than those offered to white borrowers, according to court documents.

The lawsuit says that Wells Fargo is among the major banks with a “history of redlining” in Philadelphia, a practice traced back to the 1930s that involves denying credit to borrowers in certain communities because of their race or ethnicity.

The complaint says that between 2004 and 2014, African American borrowers were twice as likely to receive high-cost loans when compared to white borrowers with similar credit backgrounds. Latino borrowers were 1.7 times as likely to receive costly loans when compared to white borrowers, the lawsuit claims.

“The city’s unsubstantiated accusations against Wells Fargo do not reflect how we operate in Philadelphia and all of the communities we serve,” Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said in a statement. “Wells Fargo has been a part of the Philadelphia community for more than 140 years and we will vigorously defend our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

Philadelphia sues Wells Fargo for allegedly discriminating against minority borrowers

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is this recent enough?

The city of Philadelphia sued Wells Fargo on Monday for allegedly discriminating against minority home buyers.

The complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by “steering” minority borrowers into mortgages that were more expensive and riskier than those offered to white borrowers, according to court documents.

That's interesting...I'm curious to see how lawyers will paint what appears to essentially be a good business practice (selling a lower valued product at a higher price) as "racist". All they have is a record of who accepted these "risky mortgages" right? Isn't it possible that the same mortgages were pushed at other people (whites, other minorities, other demographics) and they simply didn't buy them at the rate blacks did?

The lawsuit says that Wells Fargo is among the major banks with a “history of redlining” in Philadelphia, a practice traced back to the 1930s that involves denying credit to borrowers in certain communities because of their race or ethnicity.

The complaint says that between 2004 and 2014, African American borrowers were twice as likely to receive high-cost loans when compared to white borrowers with similar credit backgrounds. Latino borrowers were 1.7 times as likely to receive costly loans when compared to white borrowers, the lawsuit claims.

“The city’s unsubstantiated accusations against Wells Fargo do not reflect how we operate in Philadelphia and all of the communities we serve,” Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said in a statement. “Wells Fargo has been a part of the Philadelphia community for more than 140 years and we will vigorously defend our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

Philadelphia sues Wells Fargo for allegedly discriminating against minority borrowers

Well....it'll be interesting to see how this turns out. I would've expected that Wells Fargo would've settled just to avoid the bad press. Perhaps they're being sued for enough for it to be worth fighting.