Well, when I did, you immediately rejected it out of hand with some contortionism about how everyone has the same "opportunities," ignoring for a moment that more and better opportunities lead to success.
I don't remember any evidence. Care to give me a link?
Also ignoring the common sense that the black lesbian trans woman I mentioned would hardly be given the same opportunities (job offers, social connections, etc) by others
Why do you assume this? And if you are correct, why do you assume it is because of her differences?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I don't remember any evidence. Care to give me a link?
It was the census data that shows white people earn something like 50% more on average than black people, among other things. I'm not going to go look it up again given that you dismissed it out of hand the first time you saw it. Why should I assume this time would be any different?
Also I don't see how it's not common sense that inequality exists given that some states fight to keep homosexuality being illegal in the books, and given that Obama's race is any kind of concern at all, and so on and so forth. If equality was real, why would any of these things matter?
It was the census data that shows white people earn something like 50% more on average than black people, among other things. I'm not going to go look it up again given that you dismissed it out of hand the first time you saw it. Why should I assume this time would be any different?
Ok, I think I remember that now. But why do you assume that because white people are more successful than black people, that they have a systematic advantage? Do you know of this advantage? How are they advantaged? Do you have any evidence?
Also I don't see how it's not common sense that inequality exists given that some states fight to keep homosexuality being illegal in the books,
How does that affect their opportunity when getting a job or whatever? No matter how much I disagree with those states, I don't think them trying to make it illegal, affects their opportunities.
and given that Obama's race is any kind of concern at all,
What? I think you are referring to people who don't like him because he's black. What does that have to do with anything. Do they not liking black people affect the opportunities of black people? Why did you bring up Obama? What does he have to do with this?
If equality was real, why would any of these things matter?
First, we aren't really talking about equality, and hatred towards gays or black will never go away no matter what system you are in. Second, they really don't matter when it comes to individual opportunities.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Why did you bring up Obama? What does he have to do with this?
Well, if people question the qualifications of the most powerful man in America solely because of how he's black, suspected to be a Muslim, or a socialist, or whatever, how do you think these same people will treat those they disagree with on similar grounds but hold actual power over?
How does that affect their opportunity when getting a job or whatever? No matter how much I disagree with those states, I don't think them trying to make it illegal, affects their opportunities.
Clearly, enough people lobby for it to remain illegal that it does so despite being wholly unenforceable (Lawrence v. Texas and all that). These people don't exist in a vacuum. There are people lobbying to keep homosexuality illegal who have control over hiring practices, school admissions, financial services (loans and so on), housing, and basically everything relevant.
You can change the laws, but you can't change people so easily.
First, we aren't really talking about equality, and hatred towards gays or black will never go away no matter what system you are in. Second, they really don't matter when it comes to individual opportunities.
Things like this almost have me convinced you're just an elaborate troll.
Well, if people question the qualifications of the most powerful man in America solely because of how he's black, suspected to be a Muslim, or a socialist, or whatever, how do you think these same people will treat those they disagree with on similar grounds but hold actual power over?
Yes if an employer is racist, people of that race, who are applying for the job probably won't get it. What's your point?
Clearly, enough people lobby for it to remain illegal that it does so despite being wholly unenforceable (Lawrence v. Texas and all that). These people don't exist in a vacuum. There are people lobbying to keep homosexuality illegal who have control over hiring practices, school admissions, financial services (loans and so on), housing, and basically everything relevant.
Yet again, if an employer is homophobic or whatever, and finds out you are gay (which I don't even know how they would find out, maybe they would assume?), you probably won't get the job. Whats your point?
Things like this almost have me convinced you're just an elaborate troll.
Why? If someone in Texas doesn't like gays, how does that affect a gay person's opportunity in New York?
You seem to be cherry picking random stereotypes and discrimination, then assuming there is an actual systematic disadvantage for the people you are talking about. Meanwhile, those occurrences are rare and also affect other people with other differences. There will always be minor discrimination because of people, but that doesn't mean there is real systematic disadvantage for anyone specific.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Why? If someone in Texas doesn't like gays, how does that affect a gay person's opportunity in New York?
You act as if racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on (I always say "and so on" because people whine at me for bringing up "niche issues" like gender identity) are localized to the places where these practices are institutionalized. I live in one of the most liberal places in all of North America, and I still see racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on in my daily life. You act as if every act of discrimination is a localized thing, an isolated incident not representative of social problems as a whole.
I want your statistics, your sources, that show these things are a non-issue and that everyone is totally equal in terms of opportunity. Real, verifiable facts.
You act as if racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on (I always say "and so on" because people whine at me for bringing up "niche issues" like gender identity) are localized to the places where these practices are institutionalized. I live in one of the most liberal places in all of North America, and I still see racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on in my daily life. You act as if every act of discrimination is a localized thing, an isolated incident not representative of social problems as a whole.
I want your statistics, your sources, that show these things are a non-issue and that everyone is totally equal in terms of opportunity. Real, verifiable facts.
What? You don't need proof to show something is a non-issue. If you think there is an issue, then you provide something to back up your point. I don't need anything to show there isn't an issue.
If you see small, isolated acts of racism or whatever, then your not alone. Everyone is discriminated against at some point or another, you act like white people aren't. You act like a white person can't be denied a job maybe because they are white. I am not saying that happens a lot, but it does happen, just like when a black person is denied a job because of their color. It doesn't mean the system is discriminatory, or even the problem is substantial. You are the one claiming it is, so when is your evidence? You keep sidestepping my request because you don't have any evidence and you won't admit you are wrong.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
What? You don't need proof to show something is a non-issue. If you think there is an issue, then you provide something to back up your point. I don't need anything to show there isn't an issue.
I brought up verifiable facts to show that as far as results are concerned, white people seem to be more advantaged than black people. I want you to show an actual source that says it doesn't come from their race. Because if it doesn't and we accept your claim that everyone gets equal opportunities, where does this inequality come from? Black people just being lazier than white people or something? Enough to account for such a huge difference across an entire population?
When your argument gets taken to its logical conclusion like that, you start to sound rather racist.
Because if it doesn't and we accept your claim that everyone gets equal opportunities,
I don't think I ever said that. Different groups of people have different opportunity, and that is a fact of life. But I refute the idea that different races/gender/whatever have substantial different opportunities based on their differences.
Black people just being lazier than white people or something?
Stop saying that, I never said anything like that so stop putting words in my mouth. It's starting to get annoying. Is that how you plan to win this debate? By portraying me as a racist and annoying me to the point of not caring? By not backing down and being stubborn to the point of me giving up? By demanding evidence I have no reason to provide you, because you are the one making claims?
When your argument gets taken to its logical conclusion like that, you start to sound rather racist.
Now you are just being a jerk. You are jumping to conclusions for your own point, now you are jumping to conclusions about my point to make me come off as a racist. Can we have a reasonable debate? Or is it going to turn into a flame war because you can't back up your claims? If so, I don't want anything to do with it.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Because other potential explanations for the fact of white people being more successful than black people would be limited to black people being somehow inherently less capable than white people or the whole thing being a huge fluke. Those two are quite unlikely! There's also the mountain of evidence showing that kids from well-to-do families will do better than kids from poor families. Furthermore, there are the couple hundred of years of context. Y'know, with white people building fortunes on black slaves and passing law after law specifically discriminating against black people when they couldn't literally own them any longer and then continuing the discrimination anyway when it ceased to be explicitly legal to do so.
Uhh, yea. I agree with these things. My point is that they are not less fortunate because they are black, it is because the situation they are in. White people are in those situations too. If someone grows up poor or whatever and don't have as many opportunities, it is because they were poor, not because of the color of their skin.
White people are more likely to have a stable childhood, go through high school, have their job applications taken seriously, not get harassed by law enforcement, take place in the ruling class and the establishment and be the face of the average American. They are the norm. These are some pretty important advantages.
Do you have any evidence of these things? And if so, do you have evidence that it is because the color of their skin, or their place in society when they were born?
Black people ending up poorer than white people didn't just happen for no discernible reason at all. It's rooted in generations of racial discrimination and oppression.
I completely agree, however I see no evidence that it actually exists anymore, which is what Teia seems to believe.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Is that how you plan to win this debate? By portraying me as a racist ... ?
I have no need to portray you as a racist (or a sexist or a homophobe or whatever else). I need only to repeat the things you say back at you. If you don't like the logical conclusions from the things you say, then say different things. As it is, you say that their opportunities are different, and you even acknowledge that poverty is a problem for many black Americans, yet you still think these are all isolated incidents, that the parts don't form together into a single whole. In other words, you believe that if a hundred million black people are all below the poverty line (note: this is hyperbole for the sake of example), then that's just a hundred million independent examples and not representative of any specific problems with society.
Averages have to come from somewhere. Black poverty is enough to drag their average earnings down about 50% compared to white people. Again, if their race and history have nothing to do with it, where do you propose this difference comes from? I'm not going to accept some vapid "lol I dunno, but it doesn't come from their race!" argument. It has to come from somewhere, so I want to know what you propose is the better interpretation.
I mean, you're the one who asked me why I'd assume a black lesbian trans woman would get different opportunities than a white heterosexual cis man, questioning the validity of this statement ("...and if you're correct..."), then later you say "Different groups of people have different opportunity"? You're not being consistent at all.
I completely agree, however I see no evidence that it actually exists anymore
I found some pretty good evidence in that other thread, but you reject it out of hand.
What you're doing is essentially like looking at a fair d6 being rolled about 500 million times, seeing that the odds of any given side are pretty much equal, and saying that you don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw and that there's no evidence that a fair d6 has the same chance of rolling any of its six sides. Thankfully, I refute the notion that your approach could ever be considered logical.
Why do white people aim straight for minorities when trying to express poverty? It's like some damned annoying cliche'.
On the point:
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Michelle Alexander
Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America
Eugene Robinson
A good synthesis gives a fair explanation of the problems within the framework of the black community. The issue with rural white poverty is another related issue, especially when it mimics the inner city ghetto.
Methland: The Death and Life of An American Small Town
Nick Reding
One of the best books on modern US rural poverty I have read in ages, look at comparing the issues raised in the first two and you start to see some interesting undercurrent. Many of those undercurrents have already been expressed, at the least try Youtube or CSPAN video for interviews of either author or find a book review.
One of the interesting qualities in Robinson's work especially is he shows how economics and culture divides a people as well as how the current liberal politicking has failed the black community.
What you're doing is essentially like looking at a fair d6 being rolled about 500 million times, seeing that the odds of any given side are pretty much equal, and saying that you don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw and that there's no evidence that a fair d6 has the same chance of rolling any of its six sides. Thankfully, I refute the notion that your approach could ever be considered logical.
Let's be honest, you're also white and probably of English, French, and/or Dutch descent(guessing English). So that doesn't always give you a point into the "daily life" of being poor and inner city. There's a few cultural issues such as the effusion of "acting white" stereotypes in inner city schools that hamstrings education. This is why Jews shotgunned over other races, and why the Asians repeated the same mechanic.
That's purely a black mechanic that was born of the separatist movements that has since become something of misguided pride in the youth to "not act white." Ironically, some of which was inundated into the community by the elites. So at some point, slavery and Jim Crow isn't an excuse anymore to show the statistics. There's a few other caveats and annoyances that you see on the nurture side, but in part this gets into a cycle between the law and the actual black culture.
Ironically, the Mexicans in the US are equally one of the slowest assimilating whites in the history of the US. So that's another issue with Mexicans and other hispanics emigrating to the States. Even Caribbean blacks assimilate faster than white hispanics from specific countries like Mexico.
I'm not too certain about your experiences considering the Canadian system is far more robust than the American system and most immigrants only settle in two cities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As it is, you say that their opportunities are different, and you even acknowledge that poverty is a problem for many black Americans, yet you still think these are all isolated incidents, that the parts don't form together into a single whole.
Please read what I write. I don't think these are isolated incidents. The problem many black Americans face is poverty. Many other people face that problem too. But there is no evidence to suggest it is because of their race. As we have showed, it is because of their financial situations, and the towns or neighborhoods they are born into. The system is not discriminating, it is just fact of life that has nothing to do with their color. I have admitted many black Americans face a problem of poverty, but it is not because of their color. Why do you insist it is? You have no evidence, and I have given you a reason twice now. You are now flaming me, putting words in my mouth, demanding unnecessary evidence, and being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.
In other words, you believe that if a hundred million black people are all below the poverty line (note: this is hyperbole for the sake of example), then that's just a hundred million independent examples and not representative of any specific problems with society.
Yet again, please read what I write. It is a problem. But not because of their color. Their are other attributes to those people than their color, like the towns or families they are born into. But no, it has to be race...that is the only logical conclusion.
Averages have to come from somewhere. Black poverty is enough to drag their average earnings down about 50% compared to white people. Again, if their race and history
Ah! Stop right there. History is a part of it, I never said it wasn't....this is that "putting words into my mouth" thing I was talking about. Please stop it.
have nothing to do with it, where do you propose this difference comes from? I'm not going to accept some vapid "lol I dunno, but it doesn't come from their race!" argument. It has to come from somewhere, so I want to know what you propose is the better interpretation.
This paragraph is an example of not reading what I write, being stubborn, and putting words into my mouth. Congrats!
I mean, you're the one who asked me why I'd assume a black lesbian trans woman would get different opportunities than a white heterosexual cis man, questioning the validity of this statement ("...and if you're correct..."), then later you say "Different groups of people have different opportunity"? You're not being consistent at all.
You have to read entire posts, not just certain sentences to prove your point. So now we are taking things out of context? Alright.
Different groups, meaning people from different financial backgrounds. Depending on what you are born into, your opportunities and success might be different.
I found some pretty good evidence in that other thread, but you reject it out of hand.
If you are talking about the census thing, then no, it is not good evidence for what we are discussing. Either learn what "opportunity" means, or try to stay on the topic at hand. We are talking about people's opportunities, not their success. I think we already covered why black people might have a lower success rate than white people anyway, and it's not their race.
What you're doing is essentially like looking at a fair d6 being rolled about 500 million times, seeing that the odds of any given side are pretty much equal, and saying that you don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw and that there's no evidence that a fair d6 has the same chance of rolling any of its six sides. Thankfully, I refute the notion that your approach could ever be considered logical.
Well, I guess all I can say to this is that is not what I'm doing at all, sorry I don't have a clever comeback.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
teia, when are you going to back off and realize you're the only one being racist here? no one else is saying that blacks, mexicans, whatever have lower opportunities than whites except for you. you are literally the only one saying it's because of their race.
similarly, you're the only one saying that being gay or a woman have anything to do with lower opportunity.
you are literally being the sexist/racist/orientationist that you are saying everyone else is. it's you. you're the only one.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
That seems to be about the only thing you can say.
Right....and just ignore the rest of my post as it doesn't exist.
Since you seem to bring up this "systematic racism" all the time, and every time someones calls you on it, you have nothing to back it up with, I suggest you stop bringing it up.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Since you seem to bring up this "systematic racism" all the time, and every time someones calls you on it, you have nothing to back it up with, I suggest you stop bringing it up.
Acknowledging the problem exists != perpetuating the problem.
"Teia is racist" is an absurd argument steeped in privilege denial.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Right, so why would you tell me about how "absurd" that argument is?
Because saying that I'm racist for bringing attention to classism brought on by race would be like calling a male feminist sexist, or a heterosexual LGBT ally homophobic.
And speaking as a woman who's very openly on the LGBT spectrum, I don't mind if cisnormative heterosexual men speak for my causes, so long as they do so in a respectful way (i.e. not trying to override or negate my experiences as... a woman of nonstandard sexuality, let's just say). Same idea, different issue.
teia, it's either because of their race/sexuality/whatever or because of their class if you want to call classism. you can't have it both ways.
now, earlier in the thread you were (mainly) saying that it was race. this was before saying that homosexuals were less successful.
when no one else in this thread is saying that, and you're the only one trying to push that belief (that you clearly buy into yourself), what does that make you in the end? think about it.
PS, I happen to be on the LGBT spectrum as well. I'm currently dating a guy (I'm male). I'm pretty damn open about it myself. I would call myself a bigot if I said "gay people have no shot in hell over a straight guy" mainly because it simply isn't true.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
teia, it's either because of their race/sexuality/whatever or because of their class if you want to call classism. you can't have it both ways.
And classism comes from race/sexuality/whatever. Sure, it's not a 100% thing, which is what apologists point at all the time. "See, these few black guys earn more than the average white guy, so classism doesn't exist!" Unfortunately, that's a load of crap when statistically speaking they're the outliers.
when no one else in this thread is saying that, and you're the only one trying to push that belief (that you clearly buy into yourself), what does that make you in the end?
Unafraid of the opinions of the ignorant.
I would call myself a bigot if I said "gay people have no shot in hell over a straight guy" mainly because it simply isn't true.
Obviously you have a shot in hell, but the deck is still stacked against gay people in far too many areas to ignore.
I'm curious how you separate race and so on from social privilege when for decades upon decades, the only people with any power at all were rich white people. We aren't so far from that legacy that we can claim to be past it. Especially not when the figures for income and education and so on still skew towards whiteness. I appreciate that facing racial classism is an uncomfortable thing, but the fact is classism is alive and kicking.
I'm surprised you can't separate it. Sure, white people are on top now (in the United States anyway), but why is this? Superior numbers, better technology, winning key wars, greater advances, whatever the reason...it's still all environmental. Any other race could have had the same outcome, but they didn't. We're not the dominant race simply because we're white, like we suddenly slipped in by default for no reason.
Racial classism exists today, but that's an unfortunate by product of social dominance, which came into being mostly from environmental factors. Back in ancient [insert famous city here], everybody was basically the same race, and there was still a hierarchy of people, segregated by nobility, power, war victories, whatever. Race, specifically, has nothing to do with social dominance. (or privilege)
The fact that you didn't take any handouts when you probably could have is, I guess, commendable, but arguing in favour of denying that chance to others is selfish to extremes. If you don't like handouts, don't take them. Simple as that.
I hate to break it to you, but life - and our basic biological impulses - are about survival, which is inherently selfish. Every living thing on Earth is selfish. From the food you eat, to the air you breath, to the things you use - another living thing could probably use it better/more. Being selfish isn't this horrible thing you make it out to be. (In some instances it can be, sure)
That said, I have no problem if the Government finds a cache of gold in a public area and distributes it to less fortunate people. But when that resource comes directly from me, then I have an issue. I have the right to be selfish on my personal property. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. Is everyone who sells anything instead of giving it away selfish too?
I didn't read the rest of the thread, but it sounds like you're getting into it with PeterG now, so I'll casually back out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Because saying that I'm racist for bringing attention to classism brought on by race would be like calling a male feminist sexist, or a heterosexual LGBT ally homophobic.
And speaking as a woman who's very openly on the LGBT spectrum, I don't mind if cisnormative heterosexual men speak for my causes, so long as they do so in a respectful way (i.e. not trying to override or negate my experiences as... a woman of nonstandard sexuality, let's just say). Same idea, different issue.
Right.....but, LIKE I SAID, why would you point that at me? I didn't call you a racist, I don't think you are a racist.
And classism comes from race/sexuality/whatever. Sure, it's not a 100% thing, which is what apologists point at all the time. "See, these few black guys earn more than the average white guy, so classism doesn't exist!" Unfortunately, that's a load of crap when statistically speaking they're the outliers.
Well, classism does, and I'm not sure who said it doesn't.
Black people's overall economic status and position in contemporary US society is directly formed by generations of racial oppression. The effects of this are still felt as is evidenced by the significantly greater likelihood of black Americans to be poor, with all that that entails (education, employment, health and so on!).
Yet again, I agree, but you are drawing a different conclusion than I am.
A consequence-free way for the political establishment to win votes is to destroy social programs that attempt to help poor people while smearing those who need it as "welfare queens".
Another way to get political points, is too pander to that crowd, it sucks both ways.
If you want statistics, here is a sourced pile of them that I got within five seconds of searching. The most difficult part was to decide upon the exact string of words to search for (I settled for "black americans poverty", if you can think of a better one please tell me about it).
And here is a quick and simple Wikipedia article, of all things to use as evidence. It's useful, though, because it leads us to the Department of Education which can be searched for all sorts of fun stuff.
White people are more likely to have a stable childhood, go through high school, have their job applications taken seriously, not get harassed by law enforcement, take place in the ruling class and the establishment and be the face of the average American. They are the norm. These are some pretty important advantages.
I know you have sources for some of these things, and know they are true (other I am just not so sure), but why are you convinced it is because they are white that they have these higher statistics?
Basically you simply can't wave away the absolutely worse conditions that black people are in compared to white people as something that happens just because they are poor. Yes! That they are more likely to be poor is precisely the problem!
You seem to be all over the place in these two sentences, so....
Something about society forces significantly more black people into poverty and harsher economic conditions in general.
I don't think so. I just think it is harder for poor people or people from bad neighborhoods to achieve financial success. That fact doesn't take race into account, the fact that there are a lot of black people born into these families/towns is the reason they have less "success", and other races are born into these conditions too.
the system causes certain groups to end up worse than other groups.
I'd say it's just more of a side effect, that happens to people who are born into those towns/families, but not to people because of their race/gender/sexuality.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I don't remember any evidence. Care to give me a link?
Why do you assume this? And if you are correct, why do you assume it is because of her differences?
Yet again, I will ask for evidence.
It was the census data that shows white people earn something like 50% more on average than black people, among other things. I'm not going to go look it up again given that you dismissed it out of hand the first time you saw it. Why should I assume this time would be any different?
Also I don't see how it's not common sense that inequality exists given that some states fight to keep homosexuality being illegal in the books, and given that Obama's race is any kind of concern at all, and so on and so forth. If equality was real, why would any of these things matter?
Ok, I think I remember that now. But why do you assume that because white people are more successful than black people, that they have a systematic advantage? Do you know of this advantage? How are they advantaged? Do you have any evidence?
How does that affect their opportunity when getting a job or whatever? No matter how much I disagree with those states, I don't think them trying to make it illegal, affects their opportunities.
What? I think you are referring to people who don't like him because he's black. What does that have to do with anything. Do they not liking black people affect the opportunities of black people? Why did you bring up Obama? What does he have to do with this?
You might have to explain the on and forth, because both of your examples seems irrelevant.
First, we aren't really talking about equality, and hatred towards gays or black will never go away no matter what system you are in. Second, they really don't matter when it comes to individual opportunities.
Well, if people question the qualifications of the most powerful man in America solely because of how he's black, suspected to be a Muslim, or a socialist, or whatever, how do you think these same people will treat those they disagree with on similar grounds but hold actual power over?
Clearly, enough people lobby for it to remain illegal that it does so despite being wholly unenforceable (Lawrence v. Texas and all that). These people don't exist in a vacuum. There are people lobbying to keep homosexuality illegal who have control over hiring practices, school admissions, financial services (loans and so on), housing, and basically everything relevant.
You can change the laws, but you can't change people so easily.
Things like this almost have me convinced you're just an elaborate troll.
Yes if an employer is racist, people of that race, who are applying for the job probably won't get it. What's your point?
Yet again, if an employer is homophobic or whatever, and finds out you are gay (which I don't even know how they would find out, maybe they would assume?), you probably won't get the job. Whats your point?
Agreed. What laws do you want to change?
Why? If someone in Texas doesn't like gays, how does that affect a gay person's opportunity in New York?
You seem to be cherry picking random stereotypes and discrimination, then assuming there is an actual systematic disadvantage for the people you are talking about. Meanwhile, those occurrences are rare and also affect other people with other differences. There will always be minor discrimination because of people, but that doesn't mean there is real systematic disadvantage for anyone specific.
You act as if racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on (I always say "and so on" because people whine at me for bringing up "niche issues" like gender identity) are localized to the places where these practices are institutionalized. I live in one of the most liberal places in all of North America, and I still see racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on in my daily life. You act as if every act of discrimination is a localized thing, an isolated incident not representative of social problems as a whole.
I want your statistics, your sources, that show these things are a non-issue and that everyone is totally equal in terms of opportunity. Real, verifiable facts.
If I come off that way, I don't mean to.
What? You don't need proof to show something is a non-issue. If you think there is an issue, then you provide something to back up your point. I don't need anything to show there isn't an issue.
If you see small, isolated acts of racism or whatever, then your not alone. Everyone is discriminated against at some point or another, you act like white people aren't. You act like a white person can't be denied a job maybe because they are white. I am not saying that happens a lot, but it does happen, just like when a black person is denied a job because of their color. It doesn't mean the system is discriminatory, or even the problem is substantial. You are the one claiming it is, so when is your evidence? You keep sidestepping my request because you don't have any evidence and you won't admit you are wrong.
I brought up verifiable facts to show that as far as results are concerned, white people seem to be more advantaged than black people. I want you to show an actual source that says it doesn't come from their race. Because if it doesn't and we accept your claim that everyone gets equal opportunities, where does this inequality come from? Black people just being lazier than white people or something? Enough to account for such a huge difference across an entire population?
When your argument gets taken to its logical conclusion like that, you start to sound rather racist.
Key word, results.
Better Results =/= Better Opportunities. You are just jumping to conclusions to help your point.
I want you to show an actually source that says it does come from their race. Because there is no reason to believe so.
I don't think I ever said that. Different groups of people have different opportunity, and that is a fact of life. But I refute the idea that different races/gender/whatever have substantial different opportunities based on their differences.
There are a lot of different things. There are a lot of poor neighborhoods filled with black people, that affects their opportunities.
Stop saying that, I never said anything like that so stop putting words in my mouth. It's starting to get annoying. Is that how you plan to win this debate? By portraying me as a racist and annoying me to the point of not caring? By not backing down and being stubborn to the point of me giving up? By demanding evidence I have no reason to provide you, because you are the one making claims?
My neighborhood theory could explain that.
Now you are just being a jerk. You are jumping to conclusions for your own point, now you are jumping to conclusions about my point to make me come off as a racist. Can we have a reasonable debate? Or is it going to turn into a flame war because you can't back up your claims? If so, I don't want anything to do with it.
Uhh, yea. I agree with these things. My point is that they are not less fortunate because they are black, it is because the situation they are in. White people are in those situations too. If someone grows up poor or whatever and don't have as many opportunities, it is because they were poor, not because of the color of their skin.
Do you have any evidence of these things? And if so, do you have evidence that it is because the color of their skin, or their place in society when they were born?
I completely agree, however I see no evidence that it actually exists anymore, which is what Teia seems to believe.
I have no need to portray you as a racist (or a sexist or a homophobe or whatever else). I need only to repeat the things you say back at you. If you don't like the logical conclusions from the things you say, then say different things. As it is, you say that their opportunities are different, and you even acknowledge that poverty is a problem for many black Americans, yet you still think these are all isolated incidents, that the parts don't form together into a single whole. In other words, you believe that if a hundred million black people are all below the poverty line (note: this is hyperbole for the sake of example), then that's just a hundred million independent examples and not representative of any specific problems with society.
Averages have to come from somewhere. Black poverty is enough to drag their average earnings down about 50% compared to white people. Again, if their race and history have nothing to do with it, where do you propose this difference comes from? I'm not going to accept some vapid "lol I dunno, but it doesn't come from their race!" argument. It has to come from somewhere, so I want to know what you propose is the better interpretation.
I mean, you're the one who asked me why I'd assume a black lesbian trans woman would get different opportunities than a white heterosexual cis man, questioning the validity of this statement ("...and if you're correct..."), then later you say "Different groups of people have different opportunity"? You're not being consistent at all.
I found some pretty good evidence in that other thread, but you reject it out of hand.
What you're doing is essentially like looking at a fair d6 being rolled about 500 million times, seeing that the odds of any given side are pretty much equal, and saying that you don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw and that there's no evidence that a fair d6 has the same chance of rolling any of its six sides. Thankfully, I refute the notion that your approach could ever be considered logical.
On the point:
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Michelle Alexander
Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America
Eugene Robinson
A good synthesis gives a fair explanation of the problems within the framework of the black community. The issue with rural white poverty is another related issue, especially when it mimics the inner city ghetto.
Methland: The Death and Life of An American Small Town
Nick Reding
One of the best books on modern US rural poverty I have read in ages, look at comparing the issues raised in the first two and you start to see some interesting undercurrent. Many of those undercurrents have already been expressed, at the least try Youtube or CSPAN video for interviews of either author or find a book review.
One of the interesting qualities in Robinson's work especially is he shows how economics and culture divides a people as well as how the current liberal politicking has failed the black community.
Let's be honest, you're also white and probably of English, French, and/or Dutch descent(guessing English). So that doesn't always give you a point into the "daily life" of being poor and inner city. There's a few cultural issues such as the effusion of "acting white" stereotypes in inner city schools that hamstrings education. This is why Jews shotgunned over other races, and why the Asians repeated the same mechanic.
That's purely a black mechanic that was born of the separatist movements that has since become something of misguided pride in the youth to "not act white." Ironically, some of which was inundated into the community by the elites. So at some point, slavery and Jim Crow isn't an excuse anymore to show the statistics. There's a few other caveats and annoyances that you see on the nurture side, but in part this gets into a cycle between the law and the actual black culture.
Ironically, the Mexicans in the US are equally one of the slowest assimilating whites in the history of the US. So that's another issue with Mexicans and other hispanics emigrating to the States. Even Caribbean blacks assimilate faster than white hispanics from specific countries like Mexico.
I'm not too certain about your experiences considering the Canadian system is far more robust than the American system and most immigrants only settle in two cities.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Then why are you?
I wish that is what you were doing. You were jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth.
What you jumped to was not an logical conclusion. It was an attempt at calling me racist and you know it.
Please read what I write. I don't think these are isolated incidents. The problem many black Americans face is poverty. Many other people face that problem too. But there is no evidence to suggest it is because of their race. As we have showed, it is because of their financial situations, and the towns or neighborhoods they are born into. The system is not discriminating, it is just fact of life that has nothing to do with their color. I have admitted many black Americans face a problem of poverty, but it is not because of their color. Why do you insist it is? You have no evidence, and I have given you a reason twice now. You are now flaming me, putting words in my mouth, demanding unnecessary evidence, and being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.
Yet again, please read what I write. It is a problem. But not because of their color. Their are other attributes to those people than their color, like the towns or families they are born into. But no, it has to be race...that is the only logical conclusion.
Ah! Stop right there. History is a part of it, I never said it wasn't....this is that "putting words into my mouth" thing I was talking about. Please stop it.
This paragraph is an example of not reading what I write, being stubborn, and putting words into my mouth. Congrats!
You have to read entire posts, not just certain sentences to prove your point. So now we are taking things out of context? Alright.
Different groups, meaning people from different financial backgrounds. Depending on what you are born into, your opportunities and success might be different.
If you are talking about the census thing, then no, it is not good evidence for what we are discussing. Either learn what "opportunity" means, or try to stay on the topic at hand. We are talking about people's opportunities, not their success. I think we already covered why black people might have a lower success rate than white people anyway, and it's not their race.
Well, I guess all I can say to this is that is not what I'm doing at all, sorry I don't have a clever comeback.
similarly, you're the only one saying that being gay or a woman have anything to do with lower opportunity.
you are literally being the sexist/racist/orientationist that you are saying everyone else is. it's you. you're the only one.
Scandinavian, if you really want to be specific.
That seems to be about the only thing you can say.
Acknowledging the reality of classism is not the same as being racist.
And I dare say I have more experience being a lower-class citizen than you ever have.
Right....and just ignore the rest of my post as it doesn't exist.
Since you seem to bring up this "systematic racism" all the time, and every time someones calls you on it, you have nothing to back it up with, I suggest you stop bringing it up.
Acknowledging the problem exists != perpetuating the problem.
"Teia is racist" is an absurd argument steeped in privilege denial.
You saying the problem exists, doesn't make it exist, no matter how much you want it to.
It never ends with you does it? I never said you were a racist. I really can't believe you are putting more words in my mouth.
No, but NightfallGemini did.
Right, so why would you tell me about how "absurd" that argument is?
Because saying that I'm racist for bringing attention to classism brought on by race would be like calling a male feminist sexist, or a heterosexual LGBT ally homophobic.
And speaking as a woman who's very openly on the LGBT spectrum, I don't mind if cisnormative heterosexual men speak for my causes, so long as they do so in a respectful way (i.e. not trying to override or negate my experiences as... a woman of nonstandard sexuality, let's just say). Same idea, different issue.
now, earlier in the thread you were (mainly) saying that it was race. this was before saying that homosexuals were less successful.
when no one else in this thread is saying that, and you're the only one trying to push that belief (that you clearly buy into yourself), what does that make you in the end? think about it.
PS, I happen to be on the LGBT spectrum as well. I'm currently dating a guy (I'm male). I'm pretty damn open about it myself. I would call myself a bigot if I said "gay people have no shot in hell over a straight guy" mainly because it simply isn't true.
And classism comes from race/sexuality/whatever. Sure, it's not a 100% thing, which is what apologists point at all the time. "See, these few black guys earn more than the average white guy, so classism doesn't exist!" Unfortunately, that's a load of crap when statistically speaking they're the outliers.
Unafraid of the opinions of the ignorant.
Obviously you have a shot in hell, but the deck is still stacked against gay people in far too many areas to ignore.
I'm surprised you can't separate it. Sure, white people are on top now (in the United States anyway), but why is this? Superior numbers, better technology, winning key wars, greater advances, whatever the reason...it's still all environmental. Any other race could have had the same outcome, but they didn't. We're not the dominant race simply because we're white, like we suddenly slipped in by default for no reason.
Racial classism exists today, but that's an unfortunate by product of social dominance, which came into being mostly from environmental factors. Back in ancient [insert famous city here], everybody was basically the same race, and there was still a hierarchy of people, segregated by nobility, power, war victories, whatever. Race, specifically, has nothing to do with social dominance. (or privilege)
I hate to break it to you, but life - and our basic biological impulses - are about survival, which is inherently selfish. Every living thing on Earth is selfish. From the food you eat, to the air you breath, to the things you use - another living thing could probably use it better/more. Being selfish isn't this horrible thing you make it out to be. (In some instances it can be, sure)
That said, I have no problem if the Government finds a cache of gold in a public area and distributes it to less fortunate people. But when that resource comes directly from me, then I have an issue. I have the right to be selfish on my personal property. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. Is everyone who sells anything instead of giving it away selfish too?
I didn't read the rest of the thread, but it sounds like you're getting into it with PeterG now, so I'll casually back out.
Right.....but, LIKE I SAID, why would you point that at me? I didn't call you a racist, I don't think you are a racist.
Well, classism does, and I'm not sure who said it doesn't.
Well, that depends what you mean by "deck".
Weird, because it looks you aren't reading my posts.
Yet again, I agree, but you are drawing a different conclusion than I am.
Another way to get political points, is too pander to that crowd, it sucks both ways.
No, which is why I never said as such.
Here's where that reading my posts part comes in handy. I asked you for sources about this post:
I know you have sources for some of these things, and know they are true (other I am just not so sure), but why are you convinced it is because they are white that they have these higher statistics?
You seem to be all over the place in these two sentences, so....
I don't think so. I just think it is harder for poor people or people from bad neighborhoods to achieve financial success. That fact doesn't take race into account, the fact that there are a lot of black people born into these families/towns is the reason they have less "success", and other races are born into these conditions too.
I'd say it's just more of a side effect, that happens to people who are born into those towns/families, but not to people because of their race/gender/sexuality.