• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slavery Reparations

TheEconomist said:
I picked him as an example of someone who holds views Huey Freeman would call "racist," which is especially ridiculous when it comes from a black man. The point is that it is ludicrous to call people "racist" because they have conservative points of view. For one thing, those views are widely echoed among many groups of very different people. Clearly, they're not racist against themselves, though it wouldn't be the first time someone engages in such mental contortions.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't a black man write for racists, if the money was right? Hell, we see white people do it all the time.
 
Huey Freeman said:
And, because you have autism, you're unequipped to even empathize or sympathize, it is useless to try.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with you is not to lack sympathy, let alone lack the capacity for sympathy. I perfectly understand what you write. It's just that outside your echo chamber, it sounds insane.

Huey Freeman said:
I don't care about your individualism or your white supremacy.
Click to expand...

You should stop calling people racist and white supremacist. That has a name, it's called slander. One day, you will find someone who actually takes it seriously.

Huey Freeman said:
To claim otherwise, is offensive.
Click to expand...

You must be the most disingenuous person I have encountered. It's spectacular how you cannot talk about other people without invoking race. Most people don't care about the color of your skin.
 
TurtleDude said:
why did he claim that? were you actually able to understand his point? Could it be that he found that blacks had managed to overcome much of the pernicious impacts of slavery and jim crow laws, but then were handicapped by the dependency and social pathologies created by the welfare state?
Click to expand...

Have you even read up on what destroyed the Black family? Hint: It wasn't welfare.

Here, if you dare.

Kids Killing Kids: New Jack City Eats Its Young

Motown was the example of how far my people had come, and how far we could go with hard work, three-part harmony, silk and sequins, and tricky terpsichore. Motown went to the heights because white America loves black people who know their place after assimilation. From 1960 to ‘67, it seemed that Detroit was living the best of times.

“Life in Detroit before the riot,” said Dr. Carl Taylor, “was an absolute paradise.”

...

Why has murder become a religious observance on the streets of Detroit? How did crack become demonic sacrament? Why is gettin’ paid equal to deification to the new jacks? Dr. Jorge Fleming, chief psychologist at Southwest Detroit Hospital, says that “a lack of spiritual and moral values, values which the black family has historically instilled in their children, has in the last 30 years or so shifted to a heavy emphasis on materialism. When the plants were going full steam, and both mother and father worked in the plant and brought home a combined salary of $70,000, then the kids got anything they wanted. But when those parents were laid off during the auto slump, and when the money wasn’t coming in, there was no spiritual or loving foundation to fall back on, which caused a breach in the family. And the kids, who were used to getting everything, decided they were going to continue having the good things in life — even if their parents couldn’t provide it for them.”
Click to expand...

Like I always say, "follow the money."

When the good jobs went away, "Hood'n" became the way to earn respect and cash.
 
TheEconomist said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

Why? Isn't it racist to say a black man cannot earn a living by appealing the baser instincts of white slime?

Whistling to dogs is a hell of a good way to earn profit. Ask Fox News, BreitBart, TownHall, etc. Why would blacks be denied the right?
 
TheEconomist said:
Disagreeing with you is not to lack sympathy, let alone lack the capacity for sympathy. I perfectly understand what you write. It's just that outside your echo chamber, it sounds insane.



You should stop calling people racist and white supremacist. That has a name, it's called slander. One day, you will find someone who actually takes it seriously.



You must be the most disingenuous person I have encountered. It's spectacular how you cannot talk about other people without invoking race. Most people don't care about the color of your skin.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Dude. For an "economist" you sure do miss out factoring in the key ingredient that makes the world go around: Money.

 
calamity said:
Have you even read up on what destroyed the Black family? Hint: It wasn't welfare.

Here, if you dare.

Kids Killing Kids: New Jack City Eats Its Young



Like I always say, "follow the money."

When the good jobs went away, "Hood'n" became the way to earn respect and cash.
Click to expand...

there is some truth to that-but are you aware of Norwood-it had a strong blue collar white middle class-then the big auto factory closed. I don't recall crime going way up there
 
TurtleDude said:
there is some truth to that-but are you aware of Norwood-it had a strong blue collar white middle class-then the big auto factory closed. I don't recall crime going way up there
Click to expand...

Whites have always been more empowered for flight. They left Detroit too. They are less likely to be dependent on public transit, more likely to assimilate into rural communities, not at all likely to experience racism, etc.

FYI: You certainly see family breakdown in poor white areas where the people remain trapped. See coal country: KY, Eastern Ohio, West Virginia, etc. Major addiction problems, out of wedlock pregnancy, etc.

Murder? We saw that family of 8 get slaughtered in our own state here recently. So, those areas are not immune to violence either.

Of course, the levels of homicide out in the sticks are nowhere near the volume of it we see in a densely populated urban center where the economy has turned primarily illegal. But, make no mistake. Illegal economies are not exclusively a black thing. In fact, if we really look close, it's not even close.

Read up on the Oxy Express, Oxy Highway, Hillbilly Heroin, Dixie Mafia, etc.
 
calamity said:
Whites have always been more empowered for flight. They left Detroit too. They are less likely to be dependent on public transit, more likely to assimilate into rural communities, not at all likely to experience racism, etc.

FYI: You certainly see family breakdown in poor white areas where the people remain trapped. See coal country: KY, Eastern Ohio, West Virginia, etc. Major addiction problems, out of wedlock pregnancy, etc.

Murder? We saw that family of 8 get slaughtered in our own state here recently. So, those areas are not immune to violence either.

Of course, the levels of homicide out in the sticks are nowhere near the volume of it we see in a densely populated urban center where the economy has turned primarily illegal. But, make no mistake. Illegal economies are not exclusively a black thing. In fact, if we really look close, it's not even close.

Read up on the Oxy Express, Oxy Highway, Hillbilly Heroin, Dixie Mafia, etc.
Click to expand...

The first life sentence for a doctor abusing Oxy prescriptions came out of one of the offices I worked out of. Yeah it was in the SE Ohio area-the guy ordered more Oxy than the rest of the doctors in the county combined.
 
TurtleDude said:
The first life sentence for a doctor abusing Oxy prescriptions came out of one of the offices I worked out of. Yeah it was in the SE Ohio area-the guy ordered more Oxy than the rest of the doctors in the county combined.
Click to expand...

IMO, to follow the straight and narrow, there’s a certain level of “buy-in” required. Growing up, probably well over 90% of the US posters here have never for one second doubted the “American Dream” was attainable. It’s reasonable to argue the numbers are reversed for black kids growing up in the decaying cities.

By 1987, when the article was written, it was probably apparent to any black kid in Detroit that the brass ring could only be obtained by slinging dope and strapping on firearms. High risk, high reward careers earning $2000 a day. Hate to say, none of that is a result of Great Society liberalism. It’s sheer economics.
 
American said:
Not my problem, I didn't do it nor anyone in my family.
Click to expand...

I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain.
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate.
Woo hoo
 
calamity said:
I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain.
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate.
Woo hoo
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about?
 
American said:
What are you babbling about?
Click to expand...



Only you and our contemporaries can possibly right the wrongs done of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. However, many use the excuse that because they weren't present at the time of wronging, they're not responsible so "wash their hands" of the matter. It is society that is responsible, but as long as people do not themselves accept that they are part and parcel of society and therefore responsible, wrongs of the past can never be righted. That's my take on the entire matter. It isn't personal against you. Its about you doing your part in society.
 
calamity said:
You are familiar with the term, "I wash my hands of this." Yes?
Click to expand...

Yup, and I do. I'm no more to blame for slavery than someone stranger from Japan. People need to just move on.
 
bluesmoke said:
Only you and our contemporaries can possibly right the wrongs done of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. However, many use the excuse that because they weren't present at the time of wronging, they're not responsible so "wash their hands" of the matter. It is society that is responsible, but as long as people do not themselves accept that they are part and parcel of society and therefore responsible, wrongs of the past can never be righted. That's my take on the entire matter. It isn't personal against you. Its about you doing your part in society.
Click to expand...

The wrongs were righted. The laws don't exist any longer.
 
calamity said:
IMO, to follow the straight and narrow, there’s a certain level of “buy-in” required. Growing up, probably well over 90% of the US posters here have never for one second doubted the “American Dream” was attainable. It’s reasonable to argue the numbers are reversed for black kids growing up in the decaying cities.

By 1987, when the article was written, it was probably apparent to any black kid in Detroit that the brass ring could only be obtained by slinging dope and strapping on firearms. High risk, high reward careers earning $2000 a day. Hate to say, none of that is a result of Great Society liberalism. It’s sheer economics.
Click to expand...

yeah I agree with that. it is economics. When you have nothing to lose, risky but rewarding behavior, makes sense. Which is why I oppose the war on drugs-
 
calamity said:
I don't know, Dude. For an "economist" you sure do miss out factoring in the key ingredient that makes the world go around: Money.
Click to expand...

You are at leisure to do as you please, but in case you use quotation marks out of hesitation you should know that I actually am an economist.

Now, as for the specifics of your comment, I am perfectly aware that people are not all equally at ease financially. What I am pointing out in virtually every discussion involving claims of discrimination is not that discrimination is never a factor, that people are never victims of sexism, racism, homophobia and other prejudicial attitudes. Most people proceed under the presumptions that

(1) the prevalence of racism in western civilization is considerable
(2) that people actually take actions consonant with those racist attitudes
(3) that the effects at the scale of a society must be large.

and it is with those ideas that I take issues. In particular, your point about money makes (2) very unlikely in a market economy even if (1) were true, which I doubt it is. In an openly racist regime under Apartheid in South Africa, some occupations were set aside only for white people. A government crackdown in the 1960s or 1970s revealed many such occupations were dominated by majorities of black employees. The color of your skin has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to take care of a set of tasks, but your ability to take care of a set of tasks has everything to do with the bottom line of the business. Passing over good employees because of the color of their skin is bound to cost you something. Either you will hire someone less competent, or you will have to pay higher wages to attract a sufficiently large pool of applicants to cherry-pick the "right kind of people."

In the segregated South, laws were passed to enforce segregated seatings in public transportation at a time were many such services were operated by private businesses. Needless to say, officials later had to impose large fines and faced numerable challenges in courts by those businesses. Again, the majority of those people were white employers, living in a political climate where it would be curious if their views were so different from the parties voted into office by their constituencies. However, it is easy to see how segregated seatings is a very stupid way to manage transportation costs. In some cases, you have to refuse people because their reserved section is full, even if the section of the other group of people is completely empty. It might upset the client with no guarantee other companies will not risk a fine. Money from clients is money from clients, regardless of the color of their skin. I mentioned it earlier. Racists may hate someone, but they like themselves more than they hate anyone. The only consistent pattern in the above stories is that people do not act like racists when it is sufficiently costly to be a racist. On the other hand, government officials facing very different incentives from private businesses were perfectly free to enact racist laws that were sustained for decades. In fact, even if some of those politicians were not racists, you can make a case it was impossible to do anything about it. In front of a racist electorate, the idea that people should be treated the same regardless of the color of their skin is political suicide. The key questions for sustained discrimination, in my opinion, is always who decides and who suffers the consequences of those decisions. Everywhere racism or sexism is visibly costly to people making choices, it is unlikely that it will survive.

Another relevant point concerns the cost of acquiring information. Information costs imply I will tend to use suboptimal rules of thumb to solve complicated statistical problems because improving my guess costs too much beyond some point. It is an unfortunate fact that proportionally more criminals are found among black people than white people. It is also an unfortunate fact that black people in the US tend to live in more criminally intensive neighborhoods. Short of being able to tell exactly who is trustworthy and where it is safe enough to set up shop, it's fairly possible everyone will stop short of looking at every detail and will resort to simplifications. On the surface, it will look like racism, but in reality, it will merely be a way to economize on the costs of information and analysis. You can tell this happens as opposed to real racism because real racism is impervious to facts. When this story is true, things as simple as a black person wearing a tie or allowing companies to run background checks can change everything. Some of the most virulent opposition to government housing projects in the US were black middle and upper-income families making this exact same case that having "those people" come into their neighborhood might make them tacitly guilty by association.
 
calamity said:
IMO, to follow the straight and narrow, there’s a certain level of “buy-in” required. Growing up, probably well over 90% of the US posters here have never for one second doubted the “American Dream” was attainable. It’s reasonable to argue the numbers are reversed for black kids growing up in the decaying cities.
Click to expand...

In which case, the comment would be true of white, asian, and other kids growing up in similar conditions.

calamity said:
High risk, high reward careers earning $2000 a day. Hate to say, none of that is a result of Great Society liberalism. It’s sheer economics.
Click to expand...

This contains something that could be empirically tested. In general, does poverty cause crime? Another reasonable hypothesis is that crime and poverty both follow from another set of variable related to the kinds of choices people make such as the values they hold and the norms they internalized.

As for your comment about it being economics, let's be specific. Not all people share the same degree of patience for delaying rewards, something which is required by any of the paths our society offers to people toward prosperity, short of growing with a silver spoon in your mouth. It is also true that not everyone has the same tolerance for risk. It is clear that the people who will be most likely drawn into a life of crime are precisely people who are impatient and possibly also more tolerant of risk. They're also the kind of people who don't fit into the more traditional pathway to a financially sustainable life: the idea of getting a degree, even from a public institution, hunting for a good junior position and working your way into a decent living offers a level of safety they do not value and requires patience of which they have little.

It doesn't make your comment senseless. Anyone can understand the point that you can hardly fall below the rock bottom. If your life is like jail, without the communal showers, what do you stand to lose from... well... breaking bad?

Another point to be made that some people might have missed on both the right and the left is that there is a difference between finger-pointing and arguing at least some of the plight people face is self-inflicted. We don't know what is going on in your life, or what went on in the past, and there is enough hardship in life for anyone to feel like giving up. The reason that talking about personal responsibility doesn't need to turn into arrogant moral condemnation is fairly simple: if I say that you could have done better, it does not mean that if I was in your shoes I would have done better. In fact, even if you ignored how to do better and I did know, the history of people who took up a gym membership in January tells me it doesn't mean I could have made it work better. However, there is some solace in these remarks because having something to do with how things turn out means you can do something to make the outcome better in the future.

A big part of our disagreement has to do with how much we believe people can do on their own. I believe many people on the left underestimate how strong and able human beings can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom