Black Lives Matter—Do You Agree With Their Philosophy?

by minimus 246 Replies latest jw friends

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @Quetzal:

    There is plenty of research showing that intergenerational wage mobility is greatest with conservative men than more liberal leaning counterparts. This sociology research goes all the way back to the 60s. It also points out that extremism of any sort (whether it's religious or political) is associated with downward mobility.

    That doesn't mean everyone who votes Republican will suddenly have their kids become rich, but it's statistically a better chance that within 1 or 2 generations you are lifted out of poverty.

    The simple fact is that conservative values (dual parent households, get married and have a job before kids, take care of your parents and grandparents, don't be a criminal) are associated with much greater wealth generation indicators, it generates more income in a household and less instability if one income drops off and thus less reliance on crime to supplement income.

    This has nothing to do with your race by the way, sure, any minority group will have it more difficult because they are a minority group and thus need to do more to get out of whatever well they are in, but likewise, minority groups that are lawful (eg. immigrants and racial groups alike) will almost certainly have their kids do better vs minority groups that are illegally residing here and kids with parents that are criminals.

    As far as why Democrats suddenly started making inroads in the black community is pretty easy to find out: the kids growing up post-civil rights became reliant on government cheese. Democrats started giving out more and more handouts in an effort to destabilize black economies. Eventually all the racists died off but the policies remained. The policies Dems like FDR designed in the 40's and NYC and other cities and states as well were specifically coded to destroy Black communities, for example, NYC had a policy that if you took welfare checks and a black male was present in the residence during a random welfare check (which were targetted), welfare checks were discontinued - as a result you have less black males, both fathers and other role models in the house. Just like Planned Parenthood's original motivation was to reduce black babies being born, the motivation of welfare was to disrupt and reduce the black population.

    So yes, institutional racism existed until the late 60s and as a result, welfare policies were designed with a racist background. However the welfare never went away, the Dems simply rebranded them as 'good' and 'helping' and a generation of black people forgot the reason they were designed the way they are and is now wholly dependent on it. Breaking a dependence on free stuff is hard, even though FDR explicitly said that his policies were not intended to last, we have them, almost a hundred years later, in their original form and any politician that says he wants to get rid of Social Security and Welfare is committing political suicide.

  • coalize
    coalize

    Simon,

    I will take the time it needs, but I will try to explain exactly what I want to say in my short sentences.

    Explaining correctly statistics is NEVER uniaxial! You can't use only one variable to explain a set of data! Or you're absolutely sure to reach totally erroneous conclusion!

    A typical simple example (with fictitious datas) : Let's say that we read this fact : "Finnish population have a consumption of firewood by capita a hundred times higher than ugandese population". Then, will we conclude that finnish people have a clear appetite for firewood that ugandese people don't have, and then conclude something about the essence of being finnish?

    Or will we add some another axis to sharpen our analysis? Things like average heat in Finland and Uganda during the year, the use of another source of heating in each country, etc...

    This example is simple by purpose. Nobody reading "Finnish population have a consumption of firewood by capita a hundred times higher than ugandese population" will conclude "Then finnish people have an huge appetite for firewood", and everybody will understand "Finland is really more cold than Uganda"

    Here it's exactly the same!



    PS : one hour to write only that!

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @anony mous

    That doesn't mean everyone who votes Republican will suddenly have their kids become rich, but it's statistically a better chance that within 1 or 2 generations you are lifted out of poverty.

    Good point. That is also why claiming that voting for the Dems is doing a disservices to minority communities doesn't hold true. My take on the left vs right issue is this. They are 2 different faces of the same coin. Politicians are there to help themselves first and maybe the people after.

    This has nothing to do with your race by the way, sure, any minority group will have it more difficult because they are a minority group and thus need to do more to conform, but likewise, minority groups that are lawful (eg. immigrants and racial groups alike) will almost certainly have their kids do better vs minority groups that are illegally residing here and kids with parents that are criminals.

    Well, you can tell the above to the Jews during the Nazi Germany occupation. Being a minority and the difficulties associated with that is more complex than just being "minority groups that are lawful " . You can also go and tell that to the Native Americans and here is something about being "minority groups that are lawful"

    From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government, while at least one treaty was violated or broken by Native American tribes.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @Hisclarkness:

    Going back to page 9, Concerning "systemic racism":

    Important distinctions need to be made. "Systemic" racism implies there is racism inherent to the "system". I think being precise is very important. When I think of the "system", I think of the laws, the founding ideas, and the universal principles that under-girds the government. It is the framework that we all operate within, the system of laws that define the "ground rules" for the interactions we have. To be clear, it goes deeper than the laws themselves. It is the principles that give justification for the laws. There have been times in the past when those principles were tossed to the side and laws were created that violated those fundamentals. Those laws are examples of "systemic racism".

    I think we part ways in the definition of "system". I could be wrong about this, but after re-reading your posts, it really sounds like you define "system" in a different way. Although I can't put my finger on it. It seems like a vague definition. For example, if a bank decides not to underwrite a certain area because of risk, you perceive that as "the system" and as racism (instead of just risk management). Or even if a bank refuses to underwrite a certain redlined location based completely on race, not risk, because maybe its a bank of KKK members, you see that as discriminatory action by the "system". In reality, the "system" is on your side because that sort of redlining is illegal.

    In my mind there is a clear distinction between what is the "system" and what could be attributed to individual racist acts. This distinction is very important because if you listen to the rhetoric of BLM, they want to tear it all down. To BLM (the topic of this thread), the US is racist from its founding. The entire things needs to go and that helps us understand what they define as "systemic", even though you might have a different definition. It has been noted by many people, including black people, that if BLM really were to live up to its namesake, it would actually care about all the black lives lost each day in the inner cities (at the hands of other blacks). They don't. Because its not about blacks mattering. It is about a political and economic ideology.

    Eventually you said:

    This is why racism is systemic. Sure, the KKK and like minded individuals still exist. But racism today is less an individual problem. There is no one person to point the finger to and this is why the subject is often so hard to have.

    To me, this is an amazing statement. It is as if you feel the racism is "systemic" because you can acknowledge objectively that "racism today is less an individual problem". And, you are right - individual racism is not an issue. Nobody is out to be a racist, except the 11 members of the KKK, as you point out. Businesses, corporations, politicians, are bending over backwards to virtue signal this. Nevertheless, you feel the racism out there. It is as if you want to assert that there some nebulous cloud of racism out there, a racist fog that you can't really see or hear or touch. It is just permeating society, and the "system". It has to be the "system" because individuals aren't the problem.

    Believe it or not, this was acknowledged on page 9, and Simon gave a really good explanation of it - you are feeling the "Democratic Plantation". It is exactly what your community has voted for, and continues to vote for.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    A black man in a suit is just as respected as a white man in a suit. A white guy dressed as a hells-angel is just as threatening as a shirtless black guy with his pants round his knees.

    But even if that were not the case. Who's fault is it? Humans are pattern matching machines. We based our lives off past experiences and things we've seen. If we see a gang of black youths and deem them a threat, who's fault is that?

    I found this black man, commenting on this topic, to be interesting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evkdEamAZ3k

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @Anony Mous

    So yes, institutional racism existed until the late 60s and as a result, welfare policies were designed with a racist background. However the welfare never went away, the Dems simply rebranded them as 'good' and 'helping' and a generation of black people forgot the reason they were designed the way they are and is now wholly dependent on it. Breaking a dependence on free stuff is hard, even though FDR explicitly said that his policies were not intended to last, we have them, almost a hundred years later, in their original form and any politician that says he wants to get rid of Social Security and Welfare is committing political suicide.

    In your statement you said until the 60s and you continued by saying that the "the Dems simply rebranded them as 'good' and 'helping' and a generation of black people"

    You just simply confirmed that "Institutional racism" still exist and it is perpetuated by the Dems.

    What a lot of people seem to overlook when talking about welfare in America is that removing it will not only impact the black community, but also white people. Apparently there are more white people on Food stamps in America.

  • coalize
    coalize

    Anyway, the stats of crime in every single country in the world show clearly that crime rate is linked by a very high correlation coefficient to the poverty and not the ethnicity

  • phoenixrising
    phoenixrising

    Black lies murder is a terrorist org and are useful idiots run by those trying to destroy the nation.

  • phoenixrising
    phoenixrising

    Think of this, Muslims yell Allah Akbar and the left will say you are racist if you say they are radical Muslims. A black guy shoots or beats a white person and yells kill all the whites and its not racist they are just frustrated by being oppressed. {they are not oppressed but told they are by the left. } A white cops kills a black guy that as committing a crime and is arrested and he did it because he is racist. Did he say I am going to kill me a Nword? nope. And his fellow cop closet to him is Asian. So if you are white its OK according to the leftist idiots to jump to a conclusion. But if you are black or Muslim you can not even believe what your eyes and ears show you that the terrorist was saying. I am betting there will be a black lash against this crap. Instead of saying this was police brutality which was obvious, its automatically racist. The leftist run idiot cities will spike in crime and have already now that the fools and assholes who run it have green lighted its OK to commit crime.

  • Simon
    Simon
    You just simply confirmed that "Institutional racism" still exist and it is perpetuated by the Dems

    No. While laws existed that targeted race and denied rights based on race, then there was institutional racism. Literally, it was in the institutions of government.

    "systemic racism" which is being sold now is a different thing entirely. No one knows what it is, 'cause no one can point to it or describe it. It was invented as a way to claim racism without having to show racism.

    That democratic policies could be considered harmful to black communities is not evidence of institutional or systemic racism (whatever that is meant to be), because they don't mention race.

    If you think there is institutional racism then point to it. But simply claiming it exists isn't what I'd consider as evidence of it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit