[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Modder_Mode]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

It is still going on, but yes it is less overt.

We've had similar discussions like this in another thread Estebonrober.

Statistical disparity doesn't necessarily indicate racism/discrimination. For example men commit crimes far greater than women but we don't claim that the justice system is sexist. There will be a disparate impact on different groups of people that doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going on even though there is a racial impact.

Class plays a big factor amongst black people, socio-economic factors need to be taken into consideration when doing comparisons between black and white people, I had a similar thing to say in the another thread on incarceration rates and the disparities that exist there between black and white people.

Onto the article you linked to:

What exactly is trying to be portrayed here? That black people who have a stable job and satisfactory income, good credit history and a sufficient deposit down are somehow being discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin? A bank is in the business of making money, why would their money be no good to the banks? Banks don't exist for charitable deeds as this article somehow bizarrely puts it in a roundabout way.

Some points I'll make on the actual article:

"Faroul's contract income wasn't consistent enough, she said. So Faroul got a full-time job at the University of Pennsylvania managing a million-dollar grant."

It makes perfect sense to me why a financial institution wouldn't loan to a single income that's based off contract work, which obviously wasn't a full time position because "Faroul got a full time job" after the initial denial of credit.

But that still wasn't enough. When she tried again a year later, this time at Santander Bank, a Spanish firm with U.S. headquarters in Boston, the process dragged on for months. Eventually, an unpaid $284 electric bill appeared on Faroul's credit report. She paid the bill right away, but it still tanked her credit score, and the bank said it couldn't move forward.

Credit history means EVERYTHING when applying for a loan, especially a large home loan, banks will not go near you for even the tiniest bad credit score. And that was an unpaid bill, there could have been others that were paid late, I'm only speculating there, but I know how stringent banks can be after financial regulations were put in place after the GFC.

Things suddenly took a turn for the better after Faroul's partner, Hanako Franz, agreed to sign onto her loan application. At the time, Franz - who is half white, half Japanese - was working part time for a grocery store. Her most recent pay stub showed a biweekly income of $144.65. Faroul was paying for her health insurance.The loan officer had "completely stopped answering Rachelle's phone calls, just ignored all of them," Franz said. "And then I called, and he answered almost immediately. And is so friendly."
Was it the half whiteness of her partner that got them over the line? It turns out the bank isn't anti LGBTQ at least.

Was it the half whiteness of her partner that got them over the line? It turns out the bank isn't anti-LGBTQ at least.

But Faroul remains bitter."It was humiliating,"

They appear to be bitter and vindictive because they were "humiliated" by the bank for them simply being properly vetted like everybody else, they obviously expected special treatment for some reason. I'm not questioning on how they should feel emotionally about the experience, it can be very stressful and time consuming, but for them to claim that this is all due to systemic racism is absurd.

The article is self defeating in so many ways...

Thank you, I think I'm following along. But I'm confused, Modder_Mode! Can you tell me who the simpletons are? I'm afraid my feeble mind cannot grasp such a large idea. Please consider using finger puppets.

You and Manfred should chat privately about organizing your own in-group. You both do this literalist thing where, when faced with the inability to walk the walk, you resort to just picking apart word use and then conveniently never answer the question.

I don't like the idea of groups to be honest, I like to think for myself, tribalism is divisive and counter productive, I think groups can be beneficial in some instances, but not in the sense that you infer.

Does your correction, which I am sure is very important, change the sentiment behind my question, making it impossible for you to answer? Surely you can also show us which innocuous beliefs are being silenced, if they are not being run out. It's a common issue here, you claim, so it should be very easy. As you say, truth telling and rational logical discussions are not democratic. Since you self-describe as being a lonely arbiter of The Truth™, we cannot rely on pattern recognition within a group with like-minded beliefs here. You'll have to spell it out. What opinions, which don't harm anyone and don't advocate for suffering or further oppression, are silenced by this community's eager intolerance?

It wasn't that it was impossible to answer your question, it's just that it wasn't worded as question, it was more of a jab, but now that you've rephrased it as an actual question I can attempt to answer it.

I'd say the main ones being white privilege and inferring that because someone doesn't agree with the premise that "their all bad", that person is a "insert buzz word here".

It's important to note that I am not saying that you or anyone else here hasn't got the right to question my motives or beliefs or anyone else's or that you cant' mock or make fun of my statements or other peoples (I do it from time to time myself to be honest, so guilty as charged), I have no problems with it and I'd encourage more of it if that's your method, but don't act surprised if nothing productive comes from the discussion or claim that "you resort to just picking apart word use and then conveniently never answer the question" when the question you asked was just a personal jab disguised as a question.

 

[Modder_Mode]

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...tt_romney_is_marching_with_a_group_of_nearly/

https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gymrps/mitt_romney_joins_blm_protest_in_washington_dc/

Even the republicans (but not Trump) are admitting we have a racist problem in this country now.

Oh how delightful that a war criminal thinks that racism suddenly exists, whilst doing nothing in his two terms to address this racism and is now the poster child of the BLM movement. Truly a weird world we live in.

 

[Gorbles]

Who said Bush was the poster child for anything?

 

[Anysense]

Get it?

I got it that you are determined to keep flaming - says so in your signature. No idea why others are so tolerant - you don't even get a ban for open flaming, insults and threats - but I don't care how much time you spent trash-talking in this section of the forum.

States could also individually up their licensing requirements for police. For example, barbers in Florida as of 2016 were required under state law to have more training than police: Barbers need to log 1,200 hours, while cops need 770. It’s just one state, but it exemplifies how poor the standards can be for police licensing across the US.

Well, that would explain a lot. They are supposed to study the law at the very least, seeing as they are supposed to enforce it. Then they need to learn a fair bit about psychology, and not just theory but applcations too. They also need to learn the means of neutralizing a person without doing harm. And whole lot of other things too. I guess their instruction is very brief, simply because there is no time to do the thing properly. But education is just one part of it. You can't join the police without passing test to check you mental health, verifying that you are suitable for the job. You'll need a clear criminal record as well.

However, in reality there appear to be quite a few cops who are not just sadists, racist or whatever, but also have a long record of violence. I understand how Biden can simply shurg off the accusations of sexual assault but how can an ordinary policeman get away with even more serious crimes?

And it's not going away till parents stop passing it down to their kids.

You've put your finger on the problem. Racists become what they are because somebody brought them up this way, and the same goes for decent people - they don't just appear out of nowhere. It is possible to weed out the worst out of police ranks, but no law can change mentality of large group of people, let alone do it overnight.

 

[Estebonrober]

We've had similar discussions like this in another thread Estebonrober.

Statistical disparity doesn't necessarily indicate racism/discrimination. For example men commit crimes far greater than women but we don't claim that the justice system is sexist. There will be a disparate impact on different groups of people that doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going on even though there is a racial impact.

Class plays a big factor amongst black people, socio-economic factors need to be taken into consideration when doing comparisons between black and white people, I had a similar thing to say in the another thread on incarceration rates and the disparities that exist there between black and white people.

Onto the article you linked to:

What exactly is trying to be portrayed here? That black people who have a stable job and satisfactory income, good credit history and a sufficient deposit down are somehow being discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin? A bank is in the business of making money, why would their money be no good to the banks? Banks don't exist for charitable deeds as this article somehow bizarrely puts it in a roundabout way.

Some points I'll make on the actual article:



It makes perfect sense to me why a financial institution wouldn't loan to a single income that's based off contract work, which obviously wasn't a full time position because "Faroul got a full time job" after the initial denial of credit.



Credit history means EVERYTHING when applying for a loan, especially a large home loan, banks will not go near you for even the tiniest bad credit score. And that was an unpaid bill, there could have been others that were paid late, I'm only speculating there, but I know how stringent banks can be after financial regulations were put in place after the GFC.



Was it the half whiteness of her partner that got them over the line? It turns out the bank isn't anti-LGBTQ at least.



They appear to be bitter and vindictive because they were "humiliated" by the bank for them simply being properly vetted like everybody else, they obviously expected special treatment for some reason. I'm not questioning on how they should feel emotionally about the experience, it can be very stressful and time consuming, but for them to claim that this is all due to systemic racism is absurd.

The article is self defeating in so many ways...



I don't like the idea of groups to be honest, I like to think for myself, tribalism is divisive and counter productive, I think groups can be beneficial in some instances, but not in the sense that you infer.



It wasn't that it was impossible to answer your question, it's just that it wasn't worded as question, it was more of a jab, but now that you've rephrased it as an actual question I can attempt to answer it.

I'd say the main ones being white privilege and inferring that because someone doesn't agree with the premise that "their all bad", that person is a "insert buzz word here".

It's important to note that I am not saying that you or anyone else here hasn't got the right to question my motives or beliefs or anyone else's or that you cant' mock or make fun of my statements or other peoples (I do it from time to time myself to be honest, so guilty as charged), I have no problems with it and I'd encourage more of it if that's your method, but don't act surprised if nothing productive comes from the discussion or claim that "you resort to just picking apart word use and then conveniently never answer the question" when the question you asked was just a personal jab disguised as a question.

Dont like that one? I can find others. I can keep this up for a while. . .

https://www.propublica.org/article/disparate-impact-and-fair-housing-seven-cases-you-should-know

Countrywide, a now-defunct mortgage company owned by Bank of America, gave subprime loans to 10,000 Hispanic and African-American borrowers, while providing prime loans for white borrowers with similar financial situations. (Subprime loans come with higher interest rates to account for a supposed higher risk of default.) A Bank of America spokesperson said the DOJ reviewed loans made before Bank of America purchased Countrywide in July 2008.

I have to get to work but I will add quickly here. You sound like a CNBC mouthpiece. The market is not rational, that is an insidious lie, usually made to oneself to excuse the inexcusable. The market frankly is more manic, more racist, more sadist then we are regularly and that is saying something. So no, I do not agree that money is money to a bank and nothing else matters.

 

[rah]

Second, I wonder if you agree with this... there are all kinds of advantages that we all can have, for example, being tall can be an advantage in many circumstances, as can being good looking, or male, or college educated, or, as @AmazonQueen stated, being an Ivy League graduate... I would hold this to be true, but the bottom line is that all of us sit down at the cosmic table of existence.

I have stated before that I felt I was dealt a nice hand. Despite being born into a not well off family, I was white, tall, not overweight, not too ugly, full head of hair, not mentally impaired, and a decent education. But I've seen many other dealt even better hands that didn't put the effort in and didn't succeed. Yeah, I'll agree that it helps but it's not the total sum of success. The part that isn't the privilege is what people like to feel good about. I think that's human nature. So a term designed to negate that isn't going to be popular with those it's directed at. Using a different term isn't going to change how I feel about racism and the plight of those not white. But it will make me feel like I'm not being provoked. You seem to think the provocation is an positive thing. While you may be right that it has a better effect, I don't agree. I'd like to think I've helped when I had the power to. I've mentored many minority candidates at work and made sure they advanced in their careers. I don't think I ever made hiring decisions on the basis of race, but I'm not perfect and can't say it never happened. I didn't do it because I was being provoked, I did it out of a sense of fairness.

Not every white man needs to be provoked to help. Some do. When I'm in a room full of well off white guys, I can usually tell who those are. They mistakenly believe that since I'm white, I must be part of their club and let the veil slip. Some join in, others show slight resistance. While I was usually part of that group, I regret not being more forceful on calling them out. As I got older, I became less worried about what power they had over me and was more forceful about it. But probably, even then, not as much as I should have been.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Man who drove car into peaceful protesters in Seattle and shot one of them arrested.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...monstrator/ar-BB15bXvn?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

 

[cardgame]

He wasn't pepper sprayed or baton'd needlessly. I wonder why.

 

[zxcvbob]

He wasn't pepper sprayed or baton'd needlessly. I wonder why.

Perhaps because he wasn't a peaceful protester, innocent bystander, or member of the press.

 

[cardgame]

Remember when the cops gave Dylan Roof burger king

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Remember when the cops gave Dylan Roof burger king

The police showed more humanity and decency to a white man who just mass murdered a bunch of people in a black church then they did to a black man who's only crime was to be alledged to have had a counterfeit bill

But im sure reform will change these deep seated attitudes held by police, collectively

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't know whether something similar is happening in other countries...

but here in NL the surge to support Floyd, to show empathy, to want to end racism, is also strong among school children

A kind of Greta Thunberg effect without Greta

 

[Sommerswerd]

You seem to think the provocation is an positive thing. While you may be right that it has a better effect, I don't agree.

This statement is why I invited you to check how often I'd used the phrase on these threads, outside of this particular conversation. TL;DR rarely, almost never... precisely because I realize its inherently offensive.

My view, is that if folks recognize/acknowledge the truth of concept, then using the term, particularly if/when it triggers them, is of marginal benefit. The most utility is in shocking/discomforting the folks who deny and/or are resistant to the concept... but even then, you are dealing with someone who is more likely to dismiss and/or condemn the term, again, precisely because they reject the concept.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think people have a couple of conflicting goals when they're trying to sway someone into a (perceived) superior moral position

(a) the first is to get the person to change their mind and then eventually their behaviour (or vis versa, if the behaviour really needs to be changed asap). There are going to be many times when changing the behaviour is more important than changing the mind.

BUT

(b) there's also the instinct to clearly articulate the position, and then create the ability to feel superior when the person doesn't agree. Like, "I explained it to you, and you didn't change, and now I can think of you as a bad person". It's subconscious, but it feels good.

The problem is that sometimes the temptation of (b) prevents someone from using tactics that will cause (a). The urge to 'be correct' is more important than the urge to enable necessary change.

Have you ever advised against something, watched someone try, and then feel a glee when it failed? A 'told you so'? We like to feel superior, and sometimes this causes us to unconsciously do things that allow us to warn but not sway.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have stated before that I felt I was dealt a nice hand. Despite being born into a not well off family, I was white, tall, not overweight, not too ugly, full head of hair, not mentally impaired, and a decent education. But I've seen many other dealt even better hands that didn't put the effort in and didn't succeed. Yeah, I'll agree that it helps but it's not the total sum of success. The part that isn't the privilege is what people like to feel good about. I think that's human nature. So a term designed to negate that isn't going to be popular with those it's directed at.

I think we agree on all these things, but I want to address the fact that there is a degree of nuance in what you described as "negate". What I'm getting... is you hear the term and feel that it's intended to completely deny the value of ALL your accomplishments. I understand why you would say that, but that's not what the term is about.

The term is about context and getting folks to consider how much their inherent advantages featured in making their valuable accomplishments possible, and as you've identified... the "fairness" implications involved.

 

[Anysense]

This statement is why I invited you to check how often I'd used the phrase outside of this phrase on these threads, outside of this particular conversation. TL;DR rarely, almost never... precisely because I realize its inherently offensive.

The way I see it pretty much anyone can be offended by it. Successful (in any sense) people feel like their success is not deserved, not so successful ones are outraged because they don't feel privileged at all, sympathetic people feel like they are being accused of racism etc. Not to mention that this dirty phrase has been part of aggressive rethoric for a quite a while, so it has an aura of foulness around it.

 

[Hrothbern]

I think people have a couple of conflicting goals when they're trying to sway someone into a (perceived) superior moral position

(a) the first is to get the person to change their mind and then eventually their behaviour (or vis versa, if the behaviour really needs to be changed asap). There are going to be many times when changing the behaviour is more important than changing the mind.

BUT

(b) there's also the instinct to clearly articulate the position, and then create the ability to feel superior when the person doesn't agree. Like, "I explained it to you, and you didn't change, and now I can think of you as a bad person". It's subconscious, but it feels good.

The problem is that sometimes the temptation of (b) prevents someone from using tactics that will cause (a). The urge to 'be correct' is more important than the urge to enable necessary change.

Have you ever advised against something, watched someone try, and then feel a glee when it failed? A 'told you so'? We like to feel superior, and sometimes this causes us to unconsciously do things that allow us to warn but not sway.

Only one training in change management should already cure you from (b)

and if that was not enough... one project seeing rescued despite your design mistakes by people who want to make it into a succes because they are behind it should learn you that (a) is superior.
and yeah if you really prefer (b) you will find out how creative and persistent people can be to destroy your (perhaps pefectly designed) project.

What you describe is the typical problem of spectators and managers that give only top-down inputs.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@rah - I'll give some sports-related examples of what I mean by context, since we both like talking sports...

When the Chiefs won the Superbowl, all the players got championship rings. Dustin Colquitt, the punter, and Chad Henne, the backup QB, got the same ring that Patrick Mahomes got... but you can see that there is some obvious context to be considered between their rings and his. Its not that they don't deserve their rings. They clearly earned their rings as members of the team who did their jobs, but there is context there.

My son is a standout football player. On defense he typically gets triple teamed or double teamed. At the end of the game, the kid who got 5 tackles and spent the game mostly unblocked will be praised, and my son's 10 tackles will also be praised. But there is context, since my son was facing double and triple teams all game. The other player's 5 tackles are still a noteworthy achievement, there is just context to be considered.

If you hit a 3 run home run off a 75mph changeup in the first inning... you get more RBIs than a guy who hits a solo homer in the bottom of the ninth facing a 95mph slider from the ace closer. Its not that you shouldn't be proud of your homer. Its not diminished as an achievement, but there is still context to consider.

My long-winded point is that the phrase in question is intended to invoke context, and encourage thought, more specifically, introspection about context, rather than invalidate achievement. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wait, what? Encouraging thought?

How dare you, I say!

 

[H4run]

Only one training in change management should already cure you from (b)

and if that was not enough... one project seeing rescued despite your design mistakes by people who want to make it into a succes because they are behind it should learn you that (a) is superior.
and yeah if you really prefer (b) you will find out how creative and persistent people can be to destroy your (perhaps pefectly designed) project.

What you describe is the typical problem of spectators and managers that give only top-down inputs.

Nice discussion but actually (a) is top down, while (b) is somewhat bottom up.

(a) is to persuade someone to changes either their mind or action to be in-line with your order.
(b) is to direct them to the right course, while give them the freedom to be against it, when your team chose to be against it, use absurdum and let them fail, to proves that you are right. Or makes the most vocal among your team to be the PIC and let him handle it and failed. Sound smart but mostly the result is chaotic.

Dealing with people is hard, you cannot altered people's thought with force, no, and it's so wrong, or else you would end up to be annoying and bothering, it's more possible to change the action by respecting each other roles in organization or community.

You don't have to dig people mind, especially if you know you cannot handle the truth.