Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?

gbaji: You're so far off the mark, I really just don't care. I have no reason to think you aren't a lost cause when you can't even be on the receiving end of an argument without completely distorting it's meaning, nevermind the fact that I've never seen you yield to even the most irrefutable evidence against you.

It'd be flattery to assume that you're too dumb to understand this, when it's obvious that you just don't want to, which to me speaks more to a matter of character.



I do. Granted I've skimmed a lot of the last couple of pages, but if nothing else it amuses me to see Alma on the right side of something, for the novelty of it. Kind of anti-villainish.

Besides the fact I never implied anyone to do that, the difference is as a customer, I can freely do business with anyone I so choose. That's no different than a white guy who primarily only dated white girls. You gave your business to white women only. I think you're cheating yourself, but that's not the same as only hiring a particular race. As an employer, you no longer have that same level of freedom to discriminate. That's the difference.



I see that you finally get it and you're in denial. When black people talk about progression in the U.S., they are usually not talking about the middle class and higher in integrated neighborhoods. They are focusing at the worst case scenarios, the "hoods", primarily black with violence, no education, drugs, etc. My "assumed correlation" had a disclaimer that it wasn't true 100% of the time, but true enough of the times to talk in generality for the sake of this argument. So, you have no excuse other than your own failure to read or refusal to accept.



So, what you're saying is that you disagree with China Towns, little Tokyos and Asian Supermarkets and those labels equally offend you? You, know, because that's kind of what they do. If it weren't for Asian people, there wouldn't nearly be as many Asian restaurants in the U.S., yet you have this belief that there somehow would be. Interesting case of denial.



That's interesting, because I literally have centuries of social statistics which supports what I'm saying. Name me a country that doesn't want to supply their own needs, but want most of it to come from other countries as opposed to having all of the supplies and having other countries do business with them? Yea... So, if you're in certain countries like Japan, China, Korea,etc. where the majority of the inhabitants are of one race/nationality, isn't that parallel to a community? So, what's the difference?

Once again, you're so stuck on labels that you're confusing yourself. Generating your own money does not in any way make you more dependent on others, that's just silly.



You're so full of trash.

You say that if the black community becomes the majority in power under some process that you don't approve, i.e. focusing on enhancing the black communities, then they will not be able to give up the "legal benefits" that they had to assist them to get where they are. As a result, this would significantly hinder the white population.

I simply asked you to state what those "legal benefits" are, since they are the source of your issue. Then you have the audacity to say it's irrelevant? Then that means your argument is irrelevant, because that's what it's based on, having "legal benefits", when not necessary.

Also, you continually through out this entire thread say it's wrong for black people to want to do business with black people. I counter you to say that this happens world wide throughout time, just in our society it is a sensitive issue. As an example, I asked you if you feel the same way about other ethnicities having "Chinese Restaurants", "Mexican Restaurants", "Italian Restaurants", etc. You reply as if it is irrelevant, so does that mean you have a merit list of ethnicities? Chinese people don't count? If not, then why does one upset you and the other doesn't? I haven't heard a single person complaining about having Japanese Steak and Sushi bars...



Edited, Mar 5th 2011 2:13pm by Almalieque

I see a big difference as personal preferences vs business. I can prefer "only" brunettes over blonds in social settings, but as an employer I can't "only" hire/promote brunettes. One is personal and the other is business.

Likewise, I can prefer a black male barber over any other combination as a personal preference, but I shouldn't only hire black male barbers in a business environment.

At least it's a difference to me..

I can see where you're going, but there are still slight differences. For example, if the only reason is because it's black owned, then I personally think there is a problem with that. On the other hand, if it's because it's a family member, friend or someone who I support for a good cause,i.e. putting money back into the community, then I don't see an issue with that.

Edit:

Going back to my presidential election example. I thought it was wrong for people to vote on candidates based on their sex and skin color, but that's not the same as passing a regulation that says women and black people can't run for president. The people can choose to support who they want for dumb or silly reasons, but that's not the same as implementing a rule such as, no "x" allowed.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 6:13pm by Almalieque

The bolded section there, that's what I was talking about. That's what I think would be a harmful mindset, and counter-productive to the "color-blind" society ideal.

Aye, that's why I said "ideal." It's something to strive for. I should say that by "color-blind", I don't mean a society where differences in one's background are wholly ignored. I think that we should be aware of our differences...to know and appreciate them. That's the way to achieve understanding. By "color-blind" society, I just mean one where we don't have irrational preferences for our own races.



Sure. I wholly accept that. In fact, I provided an example of that behavior in myself (see: white athletes), so believe me, it's not that I don't understand it. I wouldn't judge anyone harshly for it. I was just discussing hypotheticals and ideals.

Edited, Mar 5th 2011 4:00pm by Eske

Sure. But as my sports analogy illustrates, there's a difference between addressing the initial starting point differential and skewing the rules of the game in order to benefit an historically poorer performing team. In Football, for example, we do things like limit the total number of players on a team, and the total salary that can be collectively paid to those players, and profit share *some* of the revenue from the league. This prevents an historically wealthy team from hiring all the best players, thus winning more games, making more money, and thus perpetually staying ahead of other teams. What we don't do is make the gameplay easier for the poorer teams. We don't let them score on a shorter field, or let them get first downs more easily, or give them 5 downs per possession instead of 4.

That's the difference between things like education funding for poor neighborhoods versus hiring quotas once they reach employment age. One is a reasonable approach to try to bridge that gap. The other is a skewing of the rules after the fact in order to equalize results. We also have to remember that sports are ultimately just entertainment. There's an inherent value to trying to keep the teams as "equal" as possible, in order to increase the total interest in the sport itself. That's why we have different leagues that play at different levels. But in the real world, that same approach is counter-productive. An employee's compensation is going to be related to the value that employee brings to the employers business. It's self creating since his salary is paid out of the collective profits of all of the employees labors. Thus, the more value his labor produces, the more profits the business makes, and the more likely the employer will pay him more.

Imposing hiring and pay "equalization" doesn't make sense in that context. Unlike sports, where equalizing of teams will increase interest in the games and thus increase total revenue, in business, equalizing of pay will decrease total productive output, and decrease total profits, and thus decrease the total amount of pay available to the pool of employees. Consumers don't generally care about the racial makeup of the people who built the product they're buying. They care about the cost of the product compared to the usefulness/quality of that product. And in the cases (as Alma suggests) where consumers are told to buy based on that racial criteria, what they're ultimately doing is increasing the total cost of the products they buy and thus making themselves poorer as well. There's no upside to this IMO.




We also have to ask how much of a disadvantage we're talking about. How far "behind" is the typical black person, for example? How do we even measure that? Whenever that example is used, it's always presented in extreme terms, as though a white person starts the race a mile ahead of a black person. But in the grand scheme of a persons life, the gap isn't really that large. Starting out in a poorer neighborhood is a disadvantage, but one that can absolutely be overcome. And once it's even slightly overcome, the difference is largely and immediately eliminated. A black kid from the ghetto gets a part time job which gives him enough money to move into an apartment in a working class (but non-ghetto) neighborhood has the exact same chances from that point on as a white kid starting out in that working class neighborhood, working at the same part time job and living in the same apartment complex.


The problem, and what makes the end statistics so skewed is that many kids never leave that ghetto, and never make that first step. Those who do perform more or less equally with others. It's the ones who don't who make the statistics end out so badly. Yet, instead of encouraging kids to take that first step and move out of the ghetto and move on to better things for themselves and their future children, what we do is focus on applying affirmative action systems to jobs which aren't the problem (more or less once they're even in a position to apply for a job at which such things are applied, they don't really need them anymore), and we convince them that supporting the ghetto is the solution. We encourage them to stay there and "help out". Worse, those who do leave are sometimes called race-traitors for not sticking around and staying as part of the "community".


We really do ***** over black people in this country. But not in the ways and not for the reasons most people assume. And IMO the very ideas that Alma tosses out there are part of the problem, not the solution. Those ideas perpetuate the differences between racial groups, and make it harder for any of them to ever catch up. The biggest cause of racism is not the racial labeling and different treatment applied to minorities by others, but the labels and different treatment they apply to themselves. The solution is to stop doing that. Stop labeling yourself as a minority group. Stop thinking you need to focus on race as a means of furthering yourself. Stop thinking as a member of a group and focus on improving your own life.


You're all arguing that we should treat the symptoms of racial inequality out of an assumption that we can't end it. But I believe that the very things we do to treat those symptoms are what is perpetuating the cause of that inequality. You can't ever eliminate it as long as you keep doing that.

Who does this? You're obviously piecing crap together that you saw in the media. I've never ever heard any black person who dreamed of "staying in the ghetto". Do you even listen to rap music? You look really, really silly right now. At the same time, I feel more comfortable that it is even more evident that you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing what people want to do, with what political powers are trying to do.

Honestly, you should really educate yourself more on these issues before talking on them. You lose all credibility when you make stuff up like you did on "black churches".



I've asked you several times to state what my idea is since it's very obvious that you don't know what it is.

You said that you don't disagree with what I said, "after I changed it" (even though it was consistent), so how is it now part of the problem? What exactly do you disagree with? You disagree with Japan wanting to be self-sufficient. You think the goal of Japan being a big exporter will only worsen the Japanese economy?



Once again.. Why don't you feel the same way about China Towns, Little Tokyo's, Asian supermarkets, little Italy's, etc.

You keep saying my question is irrelevant, but then you continuously bring up labels. So, obviously it means something to you.

Does it bother you that a Chinese person makes a restaurant labeled "Chinese Restaurant" saying that they serve "Chinese Food"?

You just said that the biggest problem is people labeling themselves, so I presented you a scenario of an ethnic group labeling themselves. You can't say it's irrelevant.



Edited, Mar 6th 2011 3:31am by Almalieque

1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:55pm by ShadorVIII

Don't worry about it, he's either explaining himself poorly or talking nonsense. Presumably, "we are fair" is not meant to convey that the two people are themselves fair individuals. This misundestanding is entirely his fault. Nor is it likely he intends to draw a distinction between equity and fairness; the language does not bear out such an interpretation, and it is in any case nonsense.

Therefore we must assume "we are fair" is supposed to mean that, at the point after the act, the distribution of resources between the two parties is fair - they put in the same effort and ended up with the same value, '6'. Due to unfair circumstances, an unfair act resulted in a fair outcome; two wrongs made a right. That is the essential thrust of his argument.

Edited, Mar 7th 2011 3:23am by Kavekk

FTFY.