Is the premise of your question that it isn't codified?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Is the premise of your question that it isn't codified?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
for it to be racist, yes. For it to have racial bias, I think that’s getting closer.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Seattle used to have redlining. They literally red lines on a map that black people were allowed to live in. This is a racist policy.
Today, Seattle is expensive. People with money send their kids to expensive private schools. People in lower income suburbs can’t afford this, and their tax dollars are comparatively smaller, and their schools get less funding. Those schools are not as good, so attending them provides fewer opportunities. This is not racism. There is a disadvantage that can be correlated with race, yes. There are a dozen other races it’s affecting too, including white trailer park kids.
A couple decades ago, someone had the bright idea that we can fix this with “bussing”. This meant that kids in high income neighborhoods that lived near a school would be legally compelled to get on a bus that takes them to a poor neighborhood to attend school there. And poor kids would be shipped to rich neighborhoods.
This was unpopular, because it’s a dumb idea. Joe Biden was called a racist for voting against it. This is why nobody takes that word seriously. It’s not worth arguing about though, semantic arguments are pretty boring. But as long as people keep calling everything racist, an unproductive semantic argument is the only thing you should expect.
Nah. There's more than enough times that he's dragged us in deep and trollololled his way out to pretend like he doesn't. I just like to point this out and every once in a while someone will acknowledge that he does seem to be trolling and it's a good days posting.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Also I did I write a real reply to what you asked. Care to continue? Disagree? Have anything to say other than "but the numbers"?
- - - Updated - - -
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteBeautiful. Yeah lets go with this one.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I think you meant to say "Candace Owens advertises her new book in a way that's sure to get attention"This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Didn't ALEC get in trouble for supporting voter id rights, anti-BDS legislation, and a version of Kenney's Bill1? I'm not familiar with all of their other legislation, but I recall those as being key points for progressives to label ALEC as "white supremacists".This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Now, I'm all for a lively debate on policy, but I'm not sure that coming down on one side of voter verification and critical infrastructure bills makes you a racist. The anti-BDS stuff is interesting because the BDS itself is pretty much anti-semitic. Interesting example, but certainly a stretch to call it institutional racism (at least from the examples I recall).
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
DAMN!
So yeah this is even more of a sham that I was already thinking. I had not heard of her before, but I see that she is a Trump supporter, so I’m sure it will be dismissed on partisan lines.
I'm only 2:30 in, but apparently she's never heard of Canada's First Nations.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I don't want get into any argument, statistical data, or an independent analysis whether racism is institutionalized in our system or not. But a simply fact that I learnt yesterday and found interesting was: in Edmonton, Black people are 3.5 times more likely to be street checked by the police than White people and Aboriginal women are 6.5 times more likely. This is what they said in the 6PM local Edmonton news.
Tried finding a link to that exact news but found this article from a couple of years ago which is highly relevant:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ding-1.4178843
And when such policies were stopped, some were replaced with broader policies to achieve a similar goal: find the stats of predominantly black neighborhoods, and then set metrics higher than that for things like publicly-assisted loans and tax credits and funding programs (this helped prompt 'white flight' where white people could get mortgages much easier to move away. It didn't target any race...at least not officially. So it couldn't be racist, right?).This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
A much more recent one is voter ID laws: not 'a policy of racism', but also definitely a racist policy when you break it down.
When 'racism became illegal' you could have an acceptable amount of collateral damage to pass off calls of inherent inequality in the system as just whining or playing the victim or a lack of personal responsibility since 'everybody is part of the same policy'. It also means that people can 'get out' and will always be held up as proof that racism no longer exists.
So when you get:
Wouldn't the solution be to fund schools equally, rather than continue the system that limits social and economic mobility? Such a system only helps the feedback loop of keeping people and communities where they were. The problem with 'inner city schools' can go back to policies from the 50s and 60s like I mentioned above, holding people behind because they were held behind at the start. So you also have to ask, what has been done to help rectify the years/decades/centuries of codified racism and inequality that lay at the heart of many of these 'correlated disadvantages'? So if the policy is to keep things the same as before, and before was built off of racist policies, that's part of the basis of systemic racism. There are misguided attempts like you mention, but they're typically tried when the appetite for the more obvious changes just won't allow it.Today, Seattle is expensive. People with money send their kids to expensive private schools. People in lower income suburbs can’t afford this, and their tax dollars are comparatively smaller, and their schools get less funding. Those schools are not as good, so attending them provides fewer opportunities. This is not racism. There is a disadvantage that can be correlated with race, yes. There are a dozen other races it’s affecting too, including white trailer park kids.
Are black people 3.5 times more likely and FN women 6.5 times more likely to commit crimes than white people? Do the crime statistics in Edmonton match the extra scrutiny a certain demographic gets?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Voter ID laws are interesting. They are designed to solve a problem that isn't really that much of a problem (voter fraud by impersonation).
Second, they aren't very effective at much of anything if they are being used as a political tool. Evidence seems to fly all over the place, but it is certainly not a consensus that they are de facto racist policies.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...65912913514854
http://files.www.chismstrategies.com...evy__Green.pdf
There are studies which claim the opposite of course.
Even so, all of these arguments including ones which are based on outcomes like surveying for tax credits, etc based on demographics are weak evidence at best. They are using outcomes to establish correlations which are then used to infer causation (which conveniently fits the op-ed). This is the weakest form of evidence and conclusion.
If you want to claim institutional racism, you have have to actually establish it with facts and evidence. You would think if the problem is as bad as claimed, then this would be a trivial task. Instead we get op-eds.
Do you think this will go away a bit if we get sports back on? You know we will be too busy watching NBA/NFL/MLB etc.
I am user #49Originally posted by rage2
Shit, there's only 49 users here, I doubt we'll even break 100
Not sure. But - just cause a certain class of people are 'likely' to commit more crime, I don't think that justifies being profiled. Reminds me of Minority Report where the cops arrest people before the crimes are even committed.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Could also be that police frequent areas that have more reported crime, said areas could be lower income, lower income areas could be less white and therefore the action is amplified. Hypothetical as I didn’t dig into the report but twisting stats to a narrative without highlighting what other data went into the analysis is pretty standard practice for news stories. Rage did a good job of posting a data source that allows you to work with the data to get more understanding of what standards impact the end result. Shame you can’t slice the data with income level, I’d speculate that is the biggest tell.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
sig deleted by moderator, because they are useless
Racial profiling is pretty much the closest we come to official racist policy, as far as I can tell. I think it should be abolished. Obama re-upped all of the racial profiling policies for DHS because they basically told him (correctly) that immigration policy would basically be unenforceable without racial profiling. Take from that what you will.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
But racial profiling is basically the same logic as affirmative action, so it's difficult to make a case for one, but not the other. In this sense both conservatices and liberals tend to be hypocrites.
That's kinda my understanding from following Black Conservatives. Police needs to go in and clean it up but because of the dis-trust of the Police we just end up a vicious circle.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I am user #49Originally posted by rage2
Shit, there's only 49 users here, I doubt we'll even break 100
Doesn't help since you have to pay for it and wear a condom.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
sig deleted by moderator, click here for info
It would be fine until one black guy takes a knee during an anthem and then it all goes to shit.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
It can also be that the practical implementation of policies disproportionately effects the most vulnerable, which are often minorities.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Take civil asset forfeiture laws in the US (which I think I've railed against before on here). In theory, it makes sense: anything bought by a criminal with their ill gotten gains should be confiscated. But when that money can then go back to funding the same department, it becomes a nasty loop that incentivized predatory behaviour.
In a report by two South Carolina newspapers, they found that over $17M in assets were seized between 2014 and 2014 in over 3,200 incidents. 20% of them never get charge and the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove that the property was purchased legally.
In the case of South Carolina, where black men make up 13% of the state's population, they account for 65% of all civil asset forfeiture cases - often in cash amounts less than $1,000.
So even if you want to argue that institutionalized racism isn't a thing, it's hard to ignore that there is an inherent systemic bias centred on race that incentivizes predatory policing behaviour that affects people of colour more than white people.
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in-...on/2457838002/
sig deleted by moderator, click here for info
Which one of your many lady friends single? Gimme their insta and I’ll send some DMs seeing your aren’t doing anything with themThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I am user #49Originally posted by rage2
Shit, there's only 49 users here, I doubt we'll even break 100