Romance is Racist

[ThatRobGuy]

Republican policies in recent years have pushed towards the extreme of mandating personal responsibility for as much as possible while minimizing the role of government - "small government," deregulation, cutting welfare, etc. Democrats have pushed in the opposite direction, obviously, trying to get the government to take more control of things like healthcare and environmental regulations, but their philosophy seems to be more about having the government deal with the things it is suited to deal with, rather than complete abdication of personal responsibility.

I don't know that I'd agree with that...

Democrats have been floating ideas like
-- cancelling peoples' student loans.
-- eviction moratoriums
-- reclassifying certain theft-related crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies (as to lighten the consequences for the people committing them)
-- No-cash bail
-- Proposals like outlawing sodas over 16oz
-- Proposing censorship measures in the name of "people may not be able to decipher this themselves and we don't trust them to use their own judgement, so we'll just not allow them to see it because they may not make what we think is the right decision"


For a few of those items on the bullet list, they're practically the definition of "abdication of personal responsibility"

"Here are the terms of the student loan, do you accept them?"
-- Yes
"There's a six month grace period, but after that's up, you have to start making payments on it regardless of employment status"
-- Yes, I agree to the terms
"With the particular degree you're going for, there's only a 20% job placement rate within the first 18 months of graduation, are you sure?"
-- Yes
"Okay, sign on the dotted line"
-- [signs]

4 years later "it's not fair that these graduates have student loan debt, and they're pretty upset about it, let's just cancel out the loan after they've already gotten the product/service" (which can't be reclaimed)


If you sign on the dotted line of a contract saying "Yes, I'll pay $X for this student loan/house/apartment", and the government let's you off the hook, that's abdication of responsibility, they're just re-branding it and presenting it as "protecting people"

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know that I'd agree with that...

Democrats have been floating ideas like
-- cancelling peoples' student loans.
-- eviction moratoriums
-- reclassifying certain theft-related crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies (as to lighten the consequences for the people committing them)
-- No-cash bail
-- Proposals like outlawing sodas over 16oz
-- Proposing censorship measures in the name of "people may not be able to decipher this themselves and we don't trust them to use their own judgement, so we'll just not allow them to see it because they may not make what we think is the right decision"


For a few of those items on the bullet list, they're practically the definition of "abdication of personal responsibility"

"Here are the terms of the student loan, do you accept them?"
-- Yes
"There's a six month grace period, but after that's up, you have to start making payments on it regardless of employment status"
-- Yes, I agree to the terms
"With the particular degree you're going for, there's only a 20% job placement rate within the first 18 months of graduation, are you sure?"
-- Yes
"Okay, sign on the dotted line"
-- [signs]

4 years later "it's not fair that these graduates have student loan debt, and they're pretty upset about it, let's just cancel out the loan after they've already gotten the product/service" (which can't be reclaimed)


If you sign on the dotted line of a contract saying "Yes, I'll pay $X for this student loan/house/apartment", and the government let's you off the hook, that's abdication of responsibility, they're just re-branding it and presenting it as "protecting people"

However, the government (which includes the education industry) has already spent 12 years of psyops brainwashing the students into thinking that if they don't accept that loan, their lives will be cesspools of misery.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

However, the government (which includes the education industry) has already spent 12 years of psyops brainwashing the students into thinking that if they don't accept that loan, their lives will be cesspools of misery.

A lot of the problems stemmed from when federal student loan grants got implemented without any consideration for things like price controls for universities wishing to participating in accepting federal grant money.

At that point, a college degree became a less exclusive credential, and over the period of a few decades. "undergraduate degree" became the new "high school diploma" in the eyes of the business world.


On paper, how they were thinking it would work was:
"College XYZ is currently charging $1500 for a degree, we understand that some families struggle financially, and students are having to take a loan to pay for that, so to lighten the load, we'll give a $1000 grant so they only have to finance $500"

What actually ended up happening was:
Universities said: "Hmmm...well, the government is footing them the first $1000, and we know these younger people are already more than willing to sign on the dotted line for a $1500 loan, so let's set our prices at $2500 now"


What should've actually happened was that there should've been pricing provisions implemented for universities that wanted to participate in the federal grants programs. Something to the effect of "Universities that wish to participate in the grant programs cannot increase price-per-pupil more than 5% year over year", if they don't want to agree to those terms, they don't have to, they just won't be eligible to participate in the program.

To reign some of that issue in, I was actually a huge fan of that bipartisan bill that was introduced a few years back that would've made the universities themselves co-signers on the student loans. Meaning, if they talk a student into going into debt pursuing some frivolous degree that doesn't confer any practical knowledge/skills, the universities are on the hook for paying the bank back if the pupil can not.

 

[RDKirk]

A lot of the problems stemmed from when federal student loan grants got implemented without any consideration for things like price controls for universities wishing to participating in accepting federal grant money.

That was the Higher Education Act of 1965. One of its key provisions was the establishment of the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, which later became known as the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. The Higher Education Act provided low-interest commercial loans to students, backed by federal government guarantees. Because of the government guarantees (which included making the loans non-dischargeable by ordinary bankruptcy), commercial banks were willing to extend the loans to students without showing ability to repay. That law was a big win for the banking industry.

At that point, a college degree became a less exclusive credential, and over the period of a few decades. "undergraduate degree" became the new "high school diploma" in the eyes of the business world.

On paper, how they were thinking it would work was:
"College XYZ is currently charging $1500 for a degree, we understand that some families struggle financially, and students are having to take a loan to pay for that, so to lighten the load, we'll give a $1000 grant so they only have to finance $500"

What actually ended up happening was:
Universities said: "Hmmm...well, the government is footing them the first $1000, and we know these younger people are already more than willing to sign on the dotted line for a $1500 loan, so let's set our prices at $2500 now"

When I started at the University of Oklahoma in 1972, tuition was $25 per credit hour. The federal minimum wage was $1.25 an hour. A person making the federal minimum wage could pay off the standard tuition for a semester plus books within that same semester working part-time 20 hours a week. With a summer job, that student would have room-and-board paid off as well. "Pay as you go" was a genuine possibility.

When I last checked a couple of years ago, tuition at that same university was $400 per credit hour. A kid today would have to earn $40 an hour at that part-time job to do as well as a kid back in 72...and we know that part-time jobs a student can hold down are not paying $40 an hour.

What should've actually happened was that there should've been pricing provisions implemented for universities that wanted to participate in the federal grants programs. Something to the effect of "Universities that wish to participate in the grant programs cannot increase price-per-pupil more than 5% year over year", if they don't want to agree to those terms, they don't have to, they just won't be eligible to participate in the program.

To reign some of that issue in, I was actually a huge fan of that bipartisan bill that was introduced a few years back that would've made the universities themselves co-signers on the student loans. Meaning, if they talk a student into going into debt pursuing some frivolous degree that doesn't confer any practical knowledge/skills, the universities are on the hook for paying the bank back if the pupil can not.

Here is the big twist: Today the federal government pays out more in outright grants (including administrative costs) than public universities collect in total tuition. IOW, if the federal government merely had public universities bill them directly, there could be free education for most students without any new money being spent.

 

[Malleeboy]

Life is better with romance!


View attachment 350467

Isn't drinking milk racist! (As lactose intolerance is generally higher outside Europe)

 

[IceJad]

That is the point I'm making. In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, what from Europe was not "Imperialist?"

This is the same ideology that propelled the Cultural Revolution. It's not just similar, it's fruit from the very same tree.

A lot of the progressive ideology are repackaged from older ideology like Marxism. There is always an oppressor and an oppressed. The US vs THEM mentality. That everything them are undesirable and everything us are of merit. That is why you see nonsensical arguments from woke ideologs. They are trying to create a narrative that nothing practice or embraced by the other side has anything good to offer. So when the time comes they will have casus belli for acting horribly because the other side is nothing but all bad.

Same happened to old China when the communist took over. They immediately set out to wipe the four olds; old ideas, old customs, old habits and old culture. The communist paint the four olds as nothing but bad that are holding the people back from progress. All they did was to destroy the potential opposition to their power structure.

The tactic is simple: Label your enemy as evil so your evil will look benevolent.

 

[IceJad]

Maybe you don't know any black folks who are "moving on up" who make that argument, but the hyper-focus on individualism and rejection of systemic factors is extremely common in conservative white communities - it's arguably a pillar of their entire worldview.

People always say systemic but doesn't give an actual example. So which law or system in the US that specifically target Black people to push down? From what I see the system seem to prioritize black people more than any other group of people.

Because I can name one which specifically disadvantage White and Asians - university admissions. And there is a legal case for it. The courts ruled in favor of the prosecution. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Or the recently exposed Disney for racial discrimination in employment of White and male - racist and misandrist. I believe most DEI compliant companies practices this as well to some degree. That's why we have so many companies come out to run their mouths about not catering to "White male".

Disney Senior VP Takes “Leave of Absence" After Being Caught Saying “There's No Way We're Hiring a White Male" — World of Reel

A journalist sent over one of his spies, on a mock date with Disney Senior VP Michael Giordano, who can be seen on camera telling the secret female reporter that Disney purposely doesn’t hire white men.

www.worldofreel.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

People always say systemic but doesn't give an actual example.

That isn’t remotely true. If you haven’t seen examples given, you haven’t been paying attention.

So which law or system in the US that specifically target Black people to push down?

One example is the lingering effects of forcing blacks into poverty via Jim Crow. Poverty, and the dysfunctions that come with it, tend to be self-perpetuating. We don’t have to actively discriminate against Blacks anymore in order for the discrimination of the past to keep holding folks back.

 

[RDKirk]

One example is the lingering effects of forcing blacks into poverty via Jim Crow. Poverty, and the dysfunctions that come with it, tend to be self-perpetuating. We don’t have to actively discriminate against Blacks anymore in order for the discrimination of the past to keep holding folks back.

So, if it's not current discrimination, then it's not discrimination.

Even most astute black observers point to "baby mama" culture as the major dysfunction of the issue. And "baby mama" culture is not accidental. It is not caused by a lack of access to contraceptives. It's not caused by a lack of education about contraction. It is deliberate and has been deliberate now going into the third generation. It has become normalized, the cultural expectation, and even the cultural aspiration. Is that a product of poverty? Prove that.

Give some specifics of the remedial action you would advise that would fix "baby mama" culture.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So, if it's not current discrimination, then it's not discrimination.

I didn't say it was.

Even most astute black observers point to "baby mama" culture as the major dysfunction of the issue. And "baby mama" culture is not accidental. It is not caused by a lack of access to contraceptives. It's not caused by a lack of education about contraction. It is deliberate and has been deliberate now going into the third generation. It has become normalized, the cultural expectation, and even the cultural aspiration. Is that a product of poverty? Prove that.

Give some specifics of the remedial action you would advise that would fix "baby mama" culture.

I don't know what "'baby mama' culture" is.

 

[RDKirk]

I didn't say it was.



I don't know what "'baby mama' culture" is.

Having babies without being married, even multiple babies by multiple men, as a cultural norm.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Having babies without being married, even multiple babies by multiple men, as a cultural norm.

Ok. I can't prove anything about it because I'm not super familiar with it. I can imagine ways in which discrimination in the past bred a culture in which this sort of thing was normalized, but ultimately, I don't know what's driving it, so I'd have a hard time suggesting ways to combat it.

 

[RDKirk]

Ok. I can't prove anything about it because I'm not super familiar with it. I can imagine ways in which discrimination in the past bred a culture in which this sort of thing was normalized, but ultimately, I don't know what's driving it, so I'd have a hard time suggesting ways to combat it.

The thing is: Unwed motherhood was not normalized in the black community until two decades after the Civil Rights Act. Slavery and then Jim Crow had made black families exceedingly difficult to maintain, but marriage was still the aspiration. Up through the 1960s, black marriage rates before motherhood actually exceeded that of white marriage rates before motherhood.

It wasn't until after the Civil Rights Movement that Radical Feminism told black women that unwed motherhood was preferrable to married motherhood. It can be easily argued that the pressure government-supported racism had placed on the black family made black women much easier prey to Radical Feminism than were white women (at that time), but it was Radical Feminism that was the final nail in the coffin of black families. It has become the norm in "black culture" (inarguably so, with more than 70% of black babies born to unwed mothers) with marriage being pursued by black people who are willing to extend themselves beyond that culture.

Most of what you're calling "systemic racism" is attributable to the unwed mother culture. But what can white America do to resolve that? You're not going to attack Radical Feminism...are you?

To get back to the thread topic, traditional romance--even as practiced by Europeans, and maybe even especially as practiced by Europeans--is an extremely successful way to engage in marriage. There are some areas where arranged marriages are superior to European romance, but traditional "white" romance is certainly superior to what's happening in the black community today, in which male and female relationships are predicated on there being no fidelity between man and woman.

 

[IceJad]

One example is the lingering effects of forcing blacks into poverty via Jim Crow. Poverty, and the dysfunctions that come with it, tend to be self-perpetuating. We don’t have to actively discriminate against Blacks anymore in order for the discrimination of the past to keep holding folks back.

What is previous but since corrected can't be use as an example. The US use to have the Chinese Exclusion Act but have seen repelled it. Therefore you can't call it systemic. That is arguing from bad faith position.

If you want to argue from a historical affect then you would have to blame the Ottomans for encroaching into Europe which in turn forced the Europeans to look for new lands which in turn caused colonialism which in turn cause the modern day problem and so on.

When we say systemic that means current times not the 1870s or the 1920s when the Jim Crow laws ended.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What is previous but since corrected can't be use as an example. The US use to have the Chinese Exclusion Act but have seen repelled it. Therefore you can't call it systemic. That is arguing from bad faith position.

It’s not bad faith; you just don’t understand it.

If you want to argue from a historical affect then you would have to blame the Ottomans for encroaching into Europe which in turn forced the Europeans to look for new lands which in turn caused colonialism which in turn cause the modern day problem and so on.

When we say systemic that means current times not the 1870s or the 1920s when the Jim Crow laws ended.

lol, Jim Crow didn’t end in the 20’s.

 

[RDKirk]

Systemic racism is like the current condition of a man's lungs who had been a heavy smoker for 50 years and had quit smoking five years ago.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Systemic racism is like the current condition of a man's lungs who had been a heavy smoker for 50 years and had quit smoking five years ago.

That’s a great analogy.

 

[rjs330]

Romance isn't racist. I don't care what this woman said. Romance isn't racist, obesity isn't racist, math isn't racist etc. This has got to be some of the dumbest things I've heard concerning racism. Why on earth are we do desperate to label things racist. Look if black people don't want to be romantic then don't be. If they don't want to appropriate white Romance, don't. It would be cultural appropriation. And we certainly don't want that. That's bad these days.

 

[Pommer]

Romance isn't racist. I don't care what this woman said. Romance isn't racist, obesity isn't racist, math isn't racist etc. This has got to be some of the dumbest things I've heard concerning racism. Why on earth are we do desperate to label things racist. Look if black people don't want to be romantic then don't be. If they don't want to appropriate white Romance, don't. It would be cultural appropriation. And we certainly don't want that. That's bad these days.

Is there a school where one learns to be an arbiter of what racism is?
This Professor might’ve gotten a grant to study if race impacts our society in what is “acceptable romance“ (or not) and found that it did.
She’ll probably gin up more grants to base further research on.
Win-win.

 

[RDKirk]

Romance isn't racist. I don't care what this woman said. Romance isn't racist, obesity isn't racist, math isn't racist etc. This has got to be some of the dumbest things I've heard concerning racism. Why on earth are we do desperate to label things racist. Look if black people don't want to be romantic then don't be. If they don't want to appropriate white Romance, don't. It would be cultural appropriation. And we certainly don't want that. That's bad these days.

Black Studies professors keeping their jobs using Critical Theory. If white people invented it, it was invented for the purpose of oppressing black people, so it's racist because it's been imposed on non-Europeans. That is the message of the ideology.

Romance, though, is universal, even if some particular expressions of romance were invented by Europeans.