Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:25:00 PM (view original):

White privilege is another left-wing attempt, and a successful one, to keep America from focusing on what will truly help black America — a resurrection of the black family, for example — and instead to focus on an external problem: white privilege.

In doing so, the Left has become the only real enemy the black has in America today.

not saying that's not true, but I'd be more likely to believe it when I hear it from some black people. Just like I have never heard a black person say there is no such thing as white privilege. I've only heard white people say that.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 3:42:00 PM (view original):
BTW - dino, tangplay, bad luck...typical delusional hate filled Leftists. You are running in great company.

Check-out the hate dino's spewing in his "safe" thread, where others are only allowed to post about unicorns and roses.

What a total freakin' hypocrite - talkin' about how he wants no name-calling or stuff like that in "his" thread, when that's what he loves to do. He red lines any and all who try to question or disagree with him, no matter their tone. Hopefully he enjoys his "power". I'm guessing it's one of the few things he actually has in life.

Ahhhhh, you better look a little closer. Wrong again right winger lol. THAT comment was from your right wing sympatico Boris........... who's pretty free with spewing namecalling and insults. lol

I think he was responding to my response to cccp, who calls tangplay names more than anyone else on this site calls people names.

Posted by all3 on 5/30/2018 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 3:42:00 PM (view original):
BTW - dino, tangplay, bad luck...typical delusional hate filled Leftists. You are running in great company.

Check-out the hate dino's spewing in his "safe" thread, where others are only allowed to post about unicorns and roses.

What a total freakin' hypocrite - talkin' about how he wants no name-calling or stuff like that in "his" thread, when that's what he loves to do. He red lines any and all who try to question or disagree with him, no matter their tone. Hopefully he enjoys his "power". I'm guessing it's one of the few things he actually has in life.

It took me a few days to realize that was not a thread that appealed to me. What I don't understand is why point out what is happening over there over here...unless there is a competition/feud I am not aware of?

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:06:00 PM (view original):
wylie asked me what I would do and I gave my suggestion?

Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents. --- I think $10bn, which is 2% of that figure is worth the investment.

No it isn't but you're trying to make me feel guilty for being white, you're not accusing me of racism. At least I don't think you are.

You agreed that kids with two parents regardless of race start ahead of those with one. Why do you refuse to push that agenda vs. crying institutional racism? Care to explain?

It's a fine suggestion.

I am not trying to make you feel white guilt nor do I think you are racist.

Because both things are important. They are both factors. We all agree on the two-parent thing.

So if WE ALL agree on the two parent thing and disagree on the institutional racism, does not not make more sense for us to attack the two parent thing first and foremost? Almost a bi partisan thought process?

Before I brought this to your attention, did you know how major of a factor having two parents was? I am just curious.

We aren't in charge. This is all hypothetical. I agree we need to attack two-parent.

I did.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/29/2018 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/29/2018 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 5/29/2018 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/29/2018 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/29/2018 3:29:00 PM (view original):
Why are we just discussing racism against blacks? What about the racism of blacks? No idea where to look for the numbers, but I'd bet the % of blacks who are racist is much higher than the % of whites. I'd also bet the % of racist whites has decreased much more over the last couple decades than the % of racist blacks. It's kind of hard for any race to say "Yeah, I'm cool with them.", when you have some of them screaming "I hate your black/white guts." in your face. Shouldn't addressing the racism of blacks be part of the discussion on how to make the problem better (it will never be eliminated)?

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Unless you can name an institutionally racist practice against white people this is a big fat nothingburger.

also, if you and your ancestors had been discriminated against for 250 years, wouldn't you be a little antagonistic against the people doing the discriminating?

Is it understandable? Yes.
Does that make it right or less detrimental? No.
You don't think white racism would decrease if nothing changed except black racism?

Not addressing the broken record named tang. institutional racism this, institutional racism that. He uses that "rationale" (excuse) so much he needs a key on his keyboard to type it all at once to avoid carpal tunnel.

Institutional racism isn't an excuse. No need for hyperbole here.

Tangplay here is where we differ.

Your definition of institutional racism:

100% due to the judicial system. You also believe because we were racists in the 40s it still impacts blacks now.

Mine is:

If KFC openly states we won't hire blacks. No institution does that.

Since you are dumb. I will give you this analogy. Say as a child I had a bad experience on a roller coaster and threw up after. I now won't allow my kids on roller coasters even though the one I threw up on has been long gone and my kids may have better constitution than me. To you that roller coaster is still causing my kids trauma because of what happened to me they are paying the price. To me its just me being an overprotective parent.

BTW - I love roller coasters and never threw up on one.

My point is the past is in the past and while it may influence future events it is not to be held against the current generation. Otherwise we should still be punishing Germany for the Nazis.

So our operational definition of institutional racism differs hence our debate goes nowhere and we end up going in circles.

Do you understand this? Y or N?

I agree with this statement. And I understand that you and I have differing definitions. That's why I wanted to clarify this long ago. So let me make my positions clear.

Here is an example, since I can't come up with an analogy.

Black person accused of a crime and convicted, despite being innocent, because the judge and police assumed (based on stereotypes) that black people commit most crimes and are troublemakers. While those people may not have been racist, we all have bias and we all stereotype. This happens a lot, and at a far greater rate than with white people. That is institutional racism.

Another example:
Black family tries to move into a good part of town in the 70's. They are denied because of redlining. That family moves into a bad part of town with tons of drugs (that may or may not have been promoted by the feds), bad schools, and lesser opportunities. That family is now at a disadvantage vs a family that was let into a better part of town. It is now MORE LIKELY that people in that family do drugs, don't graduate HS, have bad influences, etc. While these are all choices, it is still a disadvantage. That is institutional racism.

It is a little more cut and dry than a company just outright not hiring black people. More bias nowadays than outright racism. The roller coaster isn't a great analogy because the things being compared are not really equal.

It isn't 'punishing' anyone. What do you think happens if we as a society admit that institutional racism exists? We don't 'punish' white people. I don't have white guilt. We fix the problems by equalizing opportunity. We already agreed on 8/9 proposals I gave. If Jews still hadn't recovered from the Holocaust, we don't punish the Nazis further, we help the Jews. Seems simple enough.

Do you understand this? Y or N?

If you don't, just ask me questions instead of making accusations over things I didn't say.

I understand where you are coming from and 100% disagree with you.

If you want to believe that getting sent to jail doesn't put you at a disadvantage then go ahead.

Its based on wealth not color. See Leonard Little.

INNOCENT BLACK PEOPLE ARE CONVICTED FAR MORE THAN INNOCENT WHITE PEOPLE.

INNOCENT POOR PEOPLE you mean?

Also logically it makes sense. If the real criminal is black, anybody who is mistakenly convicted for that crime will almost inevitably be black as well. We also agree that the justice system is flawed for all people who don't have $$ for a good attorney. That needs to be fixed.

Our justice system is geared toward the rich and that is annoying.

What? Prove to me that the split is rich vs poor not black vs white. Both are factors and poor is a larger one but a race gap is certainly there.

That's wrong. And besides, that's not how investigations work anyway.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:40:00 PM (view original):
He had the FORCE and it ended very badly for him....years later. He never married or had kids, became a loner and his BFF was a robot. :)

#notmylastjedi

Posted by laramiebob on 5/30/2018 3:17:00 PM (view original):
"IDK, I hadn't heard about that. You may be right."

So, not meaning to pick on you at all Tangy, I think you are extremely well meaning, (you know what;s next, right?)
BUT, you are SO naive. My little "tale" about Wyoming and "wrapping that rascal" was a big (apparently bad) joke.
You know, about cowboys and sheep, and --------, C'mon man, where you been?!

It is a good example of your naivety, though.

I have been, well, not born. There is a huge generational gap on here it seems. I am very out of the loop in rural Kansas.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 3:42:00 PM (view original):
BTW - dino, tangplay, bad luck...typical delusional hate filled Leftists. You are running in great company.

I am not hate-filled.

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/30/2018 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/29/2018 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/29/2018 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 5/29/2018 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/29/2018 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/29/2018 3:29:00 PM (view original):
Why are we just discussing racism against blacks? What about the racism of blacks? No idea where to look for the numbers, but I'd bet the % of blacks who are racist is much higher than the % of whites. I'd also bet the % of racist whites has decreased much more over the last couple decades than the % of racist blacks. It's kind of hard for any race to say "Yeah, I'm cool with them.", when you have some of them screaming "I hate your black/white guts." in your face. Shouldn't addressing the racism of blacks be part of the discussion on how to make the problem better (it will never be eliminated)?

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Unless you can name an institutionally racist practice against white people this is a big fat nothingburger.

also, if you and your ancestors had been discriminated against for 250 years, wouldn't you be a little antagonistic against the people doing the discriminating?

Is it understandable? Yes.
Does that make it right or less detrimental? No.
You don't think white racism would decrease if nothing changed except black racism?

Not addressing the broken record named tang. institutional racism this, institutional racism that. He uses that "rationale" (excuse) so much he needs a key on his keyboard to type it all at once to avoid carpal tunnel.

Institutional racism isn't an excuse. No need for hyperbole here.

Tangplay here is where we differ.

Your definition of institutional racism:

100% due to the judicial system. You also believe because we were racists in the 40s it still impacts blacks now.

Mine is:

If KFC openly states we won't hire blacks. No institution does that.

Since you are dumb. I will give you this analogy. Say as a child I had a bad experience on a roller coaster and threw up after. I now won't allow my kids on roller coasters even though the one I threw up on has been long gone and my kids may have better constitution than me. To you that roller coaster is still causing my kids trauma because of what happened to me they are paying the price. To me its just me being an overprotective parent.

BTW - I love roller coasters and never threw up on one.

My point is the past is in the past and while it may influence future events it is not to be held against the current generation. Otherwise we should still be punishing Germany for the Nazis.

So our operational definition of institutional racism differs hence our debate goes nowhere and we end up going in circles.

Do you understand this? Y or N?

I agree with this statement. And I understand that you and I have differing definitions. That's why I wanted to clarify this long ago. So let me make my positions clear.

Here is an example, since I can't come up with an analogy.

Black person accused of a crime and convicted, despite being innocent, because the judge and police assumed (based on stereotypes) that black people commit most crimes and are troublemakers. While those people may not have been racist, we all have bias and we all stereotype. This happens a lot, and at a far greater rate than with white people. That is institutional racism.

Another example:
Black family tries to move into a good part of town in the 70's. They are denied because of redlining. That family moves into a bad part of town with tons of drugs (that may or may not have been promoted by the feds), bad schools, and lesser opportunities. That family is now at a disadvantage vs a family that was let into a better part of town. It is now MORE LIKELY that people in that family do drugs, don't graduate HS, have bad influences, etc. While these are all choices, it is still a disadvantage. That is institutional racism.

It is a little more cut and dry than a company just outright not hiring black people. More bias nowadays than outright racism. The roller coaster isn't a great analogy because the things being compared are not really equal.

It isn't 'punishing' anyone. What do you think happens if we as a society admit that institutional racism exists? We don't 'punish' white people. I don't have white guilt. We fix the problems by equalizing opportunity. We already agreed on 8/9 proposals I gave. If Jews still hadn't recovered from the Holocaust, we don't punish the Nazis further, we help the Jews. Seems simple enough.

Do you understand this? Y or N?

If you don't, just ask me questions instead of making accusations over things I didn't say.

I understand where you are coming from and 100% disagree with you.

If you want to believe that getting sent to jail doesn't put you at a disadvantage then go ahead.

Its based on wealth not color. See Leonard Little.

INNOCENT BLACK PEOPLE ARE CONVICTED FAR MORE THAN INNOCENT WHITE PEOPLE.

INNOCENT POOR PEOPLE you mean?

Also logically it makes sense. If the real criminal is black, anybody who is mistakenly convicted for that crime will almost inevitably be black as well. We also agree that the justice system is flawed for all people who don't have $$ for a good attorney. That needs to be fixed.

Our justice system is geared toward the rich and that is annoying.

What? Prove to me that the split is rich vs poor not black vs white. Both are factors and poor is a larger one but a race gap is certainly there.

That's wrong. And besides, that's not how investigations work anyway.

I told you --- see Leonard Little as an example. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Posted by laramiebob on 5/30/2018 7:29:00 PM (view original):
Ahhhhh, you better look a little closer. Wrong again right winger lol. THAT comment was from your right wing sympatico Boris........... who's pretty free with spewing namecalling and insults. lol

Bob, that could not be further from the truth.

I have told the Leftists here that I am not fighting stats. I will gladly have a logical debate. Stats can be misleading. NBA = 75% black. Zero Jews. NBA is not racist.

Debate me logically and that is fine. Throw stats at me and you will be disappointed. Stating that I have privilege because I am white to me is hate speech.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/30/2018 5:04:00 PM (view original):
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

...

Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no. Fig. 1 plots estimates of discrimination by year, with linear trends of best fit and 95% confidence regions (detailed estimates are in SI Appendix, section 3 and Table S3; in Fig. 1, we exponentiate predictions to present predicted values as discrimination ratios rather than less interpretable log discrimination ratios). The solid line captures the trend since 1990. The dashed line extends this time trend back to 1972, adding four resume audits conducted from 1972 to 1980. The size of the symbol is proportional to the weight it is given in the meta-analysis. The line of best fit for studies since 1990 is close to flat, sloping slightly upward, suggesting no change in the rate of discrimination over the past 25 years.

Surveys indicated that whites increasingly endorsed the principle of equal treatment regardless of race (4). Rates of high school graduation for whites and African Americans converged substantially, and the black–white test score gap declined (5, 6). Large companies increasingly recognized diversity as a goal and revamped their hiring to curtail practices that disadvantaged minority applicants (7). With the election of the country’s first African-American president in 2008, many concluded that the country had finally moved beyond its troubled racial past (8).



Same article

Yeah. That's why they were surprised to find that racial discrimination in hiring hadn't decreased over time.

cccp?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/30/2018 7:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 5/30/2018 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/30/2018 3:42:00 PM (view original):
BTW - dino, tangplay, bad luck...typical delusional hate filled Leftists. You are running in great company.

Check-out the hate dino's spewing in his "safe" thread, where others are only allowed to post about unicorns and roses.

What a total freakin' hypocrite - talkin' about how he wants no name-calling or stuff like that in "his" thread, when that's what he loves to do. He red lines any and all who try to question or disagree with him, no matter their tone. Hopefully he enjoys his "power". I'm guessing it's one of the few things he actually has in life.

It took me a few days to realize that was not a thread that appealed to me. What I don't understand is why point out what is happening over there over here...unless there is a competition/feud I am not aware of?

I glad to hear you realized that. There are some of the same people in that thread, discussing some of the same things. Since nobody is allowed to express dissenting opinion, or point out lies and hypocrisy in that thread, sometimes I do it here. Honestly, I HATE that WIS has granted such special privileged to someone so hateful, and hypocritical. That bugs me as much as anything.