• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

White couple arrested for pulling gun on black woman

Status
Not open for further replies.
just find it a telling indication of how you view the world, in a way that isn't particularly healthy.

Please, explain further.

I know that you think supporting someone's right to speak means you also endorse what they're saying, so I can see how in your mind this appears to be a contradiction, but it really isn't one.

Haha, nice one, but off-base as usual. You're somewhat missing the point (see my above reply to Commodore for more info on that). I'll also add that in this case "free speech" crowd means "people who don't actually care much about free speech as a principle but hide behind it as a way of defending racist speech without actually appearing to do so"

As commodore so astutely pointed out, free speech does not mean immunity to criticism or even social consequences for the things you say. What I've found is that what I referred to as "the free speech crowd" will invoke free speech even when there is no cause to do so. For example, in the JK rowling thread we recently saw this play out as people were criticizing JK rowling's opinions and, rather than defend the opinions directly a few posters claimed that JK rowling should not be censored even though no one was saying she should have been.
 
Please, explain further.

I already have done. Obsessed with race and see this as the primary factor in almost any social interaction. I realise you see being "colour blind" as basically burying your head in the sand, but I see being "colour obsessed" as much worse.

Haha, nice one, but off-base as usual.

I don't think so, I've seen enough exchanges on here to know that you and others see defence of free speech as either "actively supporting the Nazis" (or whatever the negative group in question is), or as coming from a desire to be able to express whatever offensive/insulting opinions they like without anyone being allowed to give them any push back. From the latter point of view it then follows that they would be advocating for a system where no-one is allowed to criticise anything anyone ever says, which would explain why you find it to be ironic that people advocating for free speech would be criticising what you've said. But the fault is yours for misunderstanding what they're actually advocating for.

I'll also add that in this case "free speech" crowd means "people who don't actually care much about free speech as a principle but hide behind it as a way of defending racist speech without actually appearing to do so"

Oh well there you go. I hadn't even read this far before typing the above, but that's pretty much exactly what I just said. Like I said, the fault is yours.

Although if you're just using "free speech" to mean whatever you want it to mean then you'll just have to forgive me for taking you literally.
 
It wasn't a joke, it was an observable fact.

But if you could explain how you could interpret it as a joke, it would help.

Systemic racism is a cop-out attempt for then people don't observe actual racism but still want to blame something convenient without basis.
 
I do not recognize any individual right to own firearms and so am not concerned about this at all.

You aren't really in a position to make this kind of statement. You hold no authority or status that gives you the power to recognize or not recognize rights.

Opinions like this are also why you will never have such authority or status.
 
Haha, nice one, but off-base as usual. You're somewhat missing the point (see my above reply to Commodore for more info on that). I'll also add that in this case "free speech" crowd means "people who don't actually care much about free speech as a principle but hide behind it as a way of defending racist speech without actually appearing to do so"

Wouldn't defending racist speech actually defend the racist speech and not the freedom to speak? When I was growing up the fallout from the McCarthy era was still alive and well, I remember hearing people get accused of being communists for the 'crime' of defending the rights of communists. Thats your logic. When free speech dies I hope we dont have to look at you lamenting its death.
 
Wouldn't defending racist speech actually defend the racist speech and not the freedom to speak? When I was growing up the fallout from the McCarthy era was still alive and well, I remember hearing people get accused of being communists for the 'crime' of defending the rights of communists. Thats your logic. When free speech dies I hope we dont have to look at you lamenting its death.

Of course the McCarthy era was defined by government attacks of speech. This is people criticizing bigoted opinions of other regular people whether we agree that said positions are bigoted or not. The distinction is very very important.
I'm so glad to know that we have never been a racist country

Not since 1964 remember!
 
Of course the McCarthy era was defined by government attacks of speech. This is people criticizing bigoted opinions of other regular people whether we agree that said positions are bigoted or not. The distinction is very very important.

One person says you are a racist for defending the rights of racists while another says you are a communist for defending the rights of communists. There is no distinction with their logic. As for that very very important distinction, McCarthy could write laws and Lex cant. Thats irrelevant unless you're also claiming Lex wouldn't write laws to suppress the speech of racists. He supports Antifa's attacks on protesters so I see no reason to believe Lex would discover the 1st Amendment if he was in power.

And it wasn't just government attacks, it was a widespread fear as people who never crossed paths with McCarthy were taught to keep quiet as 'society' embraced a distrust or even hatred of free speech because the speakers were 'them'. If people actually believed in free speech and the Bill of Rights society would have never supported McCarthyism. But Lex would have if McCarthy's target was white 'racists'.
 
One person says you are a racist for defending the rights of racists while another says you are a communist for defending the rights of communists. There is no distinction with their logic. As for that very very important distinction, McCarthy could write laws and Lex cant. Thats irrelevant unless you're also claiming Lex wouldn't write laws to suppress the speech of racists. He supports Antifa's attacks on protesters so I see no reason to believe Lex would discover the 1st Amendment if he was in power.

And it wasn't just government attacks, it was a widespread fear as people who never crossed paths with McCarthy were taught to keep quiet as 'society' embraced a distrust or even hatred of free speech because the speakers were 'them'. If people actually believed in free speech and the Bill of Rights society would have never supported McCarthyism. But Lex would have if McCarthy's target was white 'racists'.

Communism vs racism eh? This is your hill?
 
I'm so glad to know that we have never been a racist country

I'm so glad we've moved past comments that don't even sort-of logically follow from previous discussion as a fake means of refuting discussion without participating in it.

Communism vs racism eh? This is your hill?

BLM merges the two and that's all the rage lately so why not.
 
I'm so glad we've moved past comments that don't even sort-of logically follow from previous discussion as a fake means of refuting discussion without participating in it.



BLM merges the two and that's all the rage lately so why not.

Nothing worthy of response. . . typical.
 
I already have done. Obsessed with race and see this as the primary factor in almost any social interaction. I realise you see being "colour blind" as basically burying your head in the sand, but I see being "colour obsessed" as much worse.

This is so far off-base it's rather funny. Other leftists call me a class reductionist and even a racist for criticizing liberal "anti-racism" as a political dead end, but that I still acknowledge racism is a problem means I get accused of being "obsessed with race".

I don't think so, I've seen enough exchanges on here to know that you and others see defence of free speech as either "actively supporting the Nazis" (or whatever the negative group in question is), or as coming from a desire to be able to express whatever offensive/insulting opinions they like without anyone being allowed to give them any push back.

Concrete measures taken to limit the free speech of Nazis will inevitably be turned by bourgeois institutions against the Left and against marginalized people.

Oh well there you go. I hadn't even read this far before typing the above, but that's pretty much exactly what I just said. Like I said, the fault is yours.

Although if you're just using "free speech" to mean whatever you want it to mean then you'll just have to forgive me for taking you literally.

Well, the scare quotes around the phrase were a good indicator that it was not meant literally, but I'm not actually blaming you for misinterpreting, I'm just pointing out we have a difference of opinion on the issue and that's where the misinterpretation came from.

Opinions like this are also why you will never have such authority or status.

Actually, my opinions on guns would play quite well where I live if I chose to run for office. The reason I will never have authority or status is because I'm generally a dumpster fire of a person in other ways.

I'm so glad we've moved past comments that don't even sort-of logically follow from previous discussion as a fake means of refuting discussion without participating in it.

Tell us more about how the 1964 Civil Rights Act literally made racism illegal!
 
What do you call it when a Minnesota bank, in 2017 settles with the Justice Department for engaging in redlining? Were the bank employees individually racist toward minority applicants, or was there a larger systemic problem at the bank?
What share of the total mortgage lending market of US does/did that bank represent?
Also, I'm reading they discriminated against "residents of predominantly minority neighborhoods", rather than "minorities".
As far as I understand, this means they were reluctant to provide mortgages in certain neighborhoods.
This is completely normal practice in racially homogeneous countries (e.g. in Eastern Europe) as well, motivated not by racism (obviously), but risk analysis based on a host of other factors.
I'm curious how well the causal link between "they stayed clear of certain neighborhoods" >"those were predominantly minority neighborhoods" > "ergo, racist redlining" needs to be demonstrated and how it is done.
 
What do you call it when a Minnesota bank, in 2017 settles with the Justice Department for engaging in redlining? Were the bank employees individually racist toward minority applicants, or was there a larger systemic problem at the bank?

I call it a settlement to avoid the cost of a lengthy legal battle. It's already been discussed several times in previous threads that settling is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, it's just taking the cheaper option.
 
What do you call it when a Minnesota bank, in 2017 settles with the Justice Department for engaging in redlining? Were the bank employees individually racist toward minority applicants, or was there a larger systemic problem at the bank?

Caveat that "minority neighborhoods" calls into question who specifically is engaging in said racism, and that this is a settlement case.

That aside, do you believe that this "family owned" bank chain isn't/wasn't operating on the wishes of its owners?
 
Caveat that "minority neighborhoods" calls into question who specifically is engaging in said racism, and that this is a settlement case.

That aside, do you believe that this "family owned" bank chain isn't/wasn't operating on the wishes of its owners?
Let's ratchet it up, with Wells Fargo paying north of $175 million dollars to settle an investigation it steered minority applicants riskier or higher cost loans.
DoJ said:
The United States’ complaint alleges that African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers paid more than non-Hispanic white wholesale borrowers, not based on borrower risk, but because of their race or national origin. Wells Fargo’s business practice allowed its loan officers and mortgage brokers to vary a loan’s interest rate and other fees from the price it set based on the borrower’s objective credit-related factors . This subjective and unguided pricing discretion resulted in African-American and Hispanic borrowers paying more. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo was aware the fees and interest rates it was charging discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers, but the actions it took were insufficient and ineffective in stopping it.

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Wells Fargo’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of wholesale borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was the bank’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Wells Fargo gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Wells Fargo’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

This is the second time that the Justice Department has alleged and obtained relief for borrowers who were steered into loans based on race or national origin, a practice that systematically placed borrowers of color into subprime mortgage loan products while placing non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar creditworthiness in prime loans. By steering borrowers into subprime loans from 2004 to 2008, the complaint alleges, Wells Fargo harmed those qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Subprime loans generally carried higher-cost terms, such as prepayment penalties and adjustable interest rates that started with low initial teaser rates, and then increased significantly after two or three years, often making the payments unaffordable and leaving the borrowers at a much higher risk of default or foreclosure.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...wells-fargo-resulting-more-175-million-relief

Were the actions of the Wells Fargo employees all because each of them were racist and looking for ways to harm minorities; or, again, might this be a sign of a systemic problem?
 
How do we define a sorting mechanism that sorts people by an 'indifferent' sorting system, but then results in evidence that something before that system was causing problems? Is the system then called racist?

I'll use an example. Let's pretend to build a welfare system (in the sixties) that taxes people (regressively) during their working years and then pays a benefit to them after they turn 62. This then allows people to have a higher quality of life in their senior years, and even then allows the passing on of generational wealth. The system itself is 'fair'. It taxes wages. It then pays out.

A generation later, one cohort of workers has a harder time putting down payment for a house, because they inherited less. "Downpayment" systems are also themselves "fair", in that they're just formulas.

What would we call each component contributing to the racist outcomes? I'm asking for definitional reasons. Also, once you can track the etiology of a racist outcome, finding the least painful intervention to correct it (or most effective intervention, dealer's choice) is maybe easier.

Spoiler Build social security on this :

26a_line_LIFEEXPECTANCY.gif

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom