Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#252 Mar 03 2011 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Black people think OJ was innocent...?

Also, I enjoy a number of "all black cast" movies. I really want to see "Colored Girls," I think that looks really good. I don't like the Medea movies, though. I loved "Waiting to Exhale" and "Set it Off."

I also loved The Fresh Price of Bel Air, but I don't know if you'd count that...



Let's not forget "Soul Food". Love that movie.

Meh, I have Friday and Bad Boys in my library, so I'm good on token movies.

Also, do I get sensitivity credits if I frown when Cleavon Little says n:gger in Blazing Saddles?

If not, I'm going back to laughing.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#253 Mar 03 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Relevant new Penny Arcade is semi-relevant.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 1:40pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#254 Mar 03 2011 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.


This whole argument sort of reminds me of all of the "Buy American" campaigns...

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 9:38am by Belkira


Reminds me of college when students complain about foreign math instructors, yet no U.S. American wants to study math. There's a push to have more U.S American mathematicians and scientists, not because of accents, but for representation in progress.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#255 Mar 03 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.


This whole argument sort of reminds me of all of the "Buy American" campaigns...

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 9:38am by Belkira


Reminds me of college when students complain about foreign math instructors, yet no U.S. American wants to study math. There's a push to have more U.S American mathematicians and scientists, not because of accents, but for representation in progress.


That one's a vicious cycle. I took a Calc II class in undergrad twice. The first time I took it was with a Chinese professor who was literally impossible to understand. You had to try to piece together the already-difficult subject matter by what was written alone...nothing he said did any good. I got a D+. That class was the death blow to my interest in math.


I took the class again, this time with a British prof, and got an A-, but at that point it was just to replace the grade, and my interest was gone.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#256 Mar 03 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.


This whole argument sort of reminds me of all of the "Buy American" campaigns...

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 9:38am by Belkira


Reminds me of college when students complain about foreign math instructors, yet no U.S. American wants to study math. There's a push to have more U.S American mathematicians and scientists, not because of accents, but for representation in progress.


That one's a vicious cycle. I took a Calc II class in undergrad twice. The first time I took it was with a Chinese professor who was literally impossible to understand. You had to try to piece together the already-difficult subject matter by what was written alone...nothing he said did any good. I got a D+. That class was the death blow to my interest in math.


I took the class again, this time with a British prof, and got an A-, but at that point it was just to replace the grade, and my interest was gone.


I never had any problems with my Chinese and Indian instructors, but I think it's because I like to learn languages. I had some teachers that spoke "broken English", but I always understood them.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#257 Mar 03 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.


Actually. This is the very first time in this thread that you have clearly made that statement. In fact, this is precisely the statement I've been trying to dig out of you for a good 3 pages of this thread. My original issue with your position was that you said that ethnic minorities should "help out" members of their own ethnic group. That statement certainly seemed to be saying that race and ethnicity mattered and was the primary determinant of who someone should help out.

I've been pointing this one statement out over and over and asking you to either clarify or correct it. You have finally done so. Great! Progress at last. :)

Quote:
So, basically, you don't disagree with me at all...


I disagreed with your original statement. Now that you have reversed your position on that issue, I have no issue with that regard.

I still disagree that it's a great idea in the long run to cling to the whole "keep money in the community" bit, but at least you've stepped away from the idea that this should be done for purely racial reasons.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#258 Mar 03 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
good 3 pages of this thread.


Good?? What, exactly, was good about it?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#259 Mar 03 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
The good part was where it kept Alma tied up in one topic away from anything anyone else was discussing.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#260 Mar 03 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Kachi wrote:
Or it keeps money in the communities that don't have as much of it, which is kind of the point.


Except that if everyone follows that same approach, then no new money will ever flow into those communities either. Thus, they'll always be poor and never improve their condition.

Quote:
Your point might hold relevance if minorities weren't more segregated today than they were in the 70's, but these days your race is very likely your community, and keeping money within your community is something white people would probably happily do if they could easily figure out which white people were in their community and which weren't. It's not very effective when you're vastly the majority.


Assuming it's true that minorities are more segregated today than they were in the 70s, couldn't one suggest that this is *because* of the rise of the "help out your own group" mentality? If those groups abandoned that idea, we would become less segregated and the issue wouldn't matter anymore. Certainly, there would be no correlation between money in a community and race.

Put another way, if a black person had the same lack of knowledge as to whether another black person was part of his own community as white people do (your example), then he'd have no reason to apply any sort of racial criteria when spending money. Wouldn't that be better in the long run? IMO anything that re-enforces and even creates additional differentiating factors between racial groups runs counter to the presumed objective of moving to a colorblind society.


Quote:
Research bureaus that get large government grants are able to collect that data in -samples- to do statistical analysis and report on general trends. Schools do not have the resources to actually collect that data on individuals.


I'm not sure how that addresses the issue I raised. Do those research bureaus actually start with a colorblind definition of "needy groups of people" and then use data analysis to determine ways to identify them? Or do they start with lists of existing minority groups and then use data to determine the amount of need within those groups?

I suspect it's more of the latter than the former. Add in pressure from political groups who want more funding for their group, and it's hard to believe that the end result of this process is anywhere close to racially unbiased. I suppose it's possible though. I'm still curious why we can't just direct these resource towards "people in need", and not look at their ethnicity. The very fact that we do somewhat strongly suggests that there's a skew in there somewhere.

Quote:
Quote:
But what is "harm"? If you choose to buy something at a store because the owner has the same skin color as you, aren't you harming the owner of the store you might otherwise have purchased that item from? It's just strange to me that things like differences in hiring rates and pay, with no definitive motive behind them are fairly universally assumed to be proof of "institutional racism" by whites against blacks, but a black person deliberately choosing to financially benefit a black person in preference to a white person isn't?


If it weren't for institutional and systemic racism, again, you might have a point. But attempting to offset one with the other is the difference.


But you are offsetting one thing which is not a conscious choice to inflict harm on another, with a conscious choice to inflict harm back. When a white person buys a product at a store without considering at all the color of the person who owns it, but because there already exists the condition where most stores are owned by white people, we can say that said purchase "benefits" white people. And we could even say that by exclusion, it "harms" black people (for example). But said harm is unintentional. It's not done out of a racial intent.

When a black person attempts to offset that by deliberately avoiding white owned stores in favor of black owned ones, isn't what he's doing worse?

Another aspect of this, which ties into a point I made earlier, is that what the white person is doing automatically adjusts to changing socio-economic conditions. As any given group gains more equality in the store owning market, the economic gains from consumer activity automatically shifts. No one has to think in terms of "how many black owners are represented here, and should I adjust my behavior in some way to make things fair?". They simply buy the products they want. But the solution you're advocating perpetuates racially discriminatory decisions. All the time. By all the people.

I just can't see how that's conducive to ever ending racism. When people are expected to constantly take into account the skin colors of the people they interact with every day, you're creating an acceptance of racial discrimination. I just think that's going to take us in the exact opposite direction to where we should be going.

Quote:
It's all an effort to make things more fair and equitable-- to establish a more even footing. We can't just say, "Ok, equal starting now!" which was the initial idea of the civil rights movement, and magically everything is ok.


But you can never have a fair and equitable result if you use unfair and non-equitable means to get there. And honestly, from the trends we've seen, it certainly appears as though the means we're trying to use don't actually make the result any more equitable. As I pointed out at the top of this post, self-segregation tends to primarily hurt the group doing it. They fall farther behind. They don't catch up.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 1:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#261 Mar 03 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Generally, what gbaji said.




Wow that's weird to write.


Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 5:06pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#262 Mar 03 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Except that if everyone follows that same approach, then no new money will ever flow into those communities either. Thus, they'll always be poor and never improve their condition.


Sigh. Everyone isn't SUPPOSED to follow that approach. I JUST said that.

Quote:
Assuming it's true that minorities are more segregated today than they were in the 70s, couldn't one suggest that this is *because* of the rise of the "help out your own group" mentality? If those groups abandoned that idea, we would become less segregated and the issue wouldn't matter anymore. Certainly, there would be no correlation between money in a community and race.


Actually, it's largely because of redistricting issues that essentially re-segregated schools (alongside still unfair employment practices), grouping low income minorities into areas where they could essentially only afford to live in areas where government money wasn't being proportionately distributed to public services and facilities.

Quote:

I'm not sure how that addresses the issue I raised. Do those research bureaus actually start with a colorblind definition of "needy groups of people" and then use data analysis to determine ways to identify them? Or do they start with lists of existing minority groups and then use data to determine the amount of need within those groups?


They collect data from a sample of the population as a whole and then analyze the differences between them. The purpose is seldom to only identify needy groups or any crap like that, but to look at the statistics and find out what the trends are. Sometimes they hypothesize how one group will differ from another, but hypothesizing isn't especially important for descriptive studies.

Bias or pressure doesn't really enter into the equation in studies like these. You would have to actually falsify data for that to impact the results, and too many studies from different sources corroborate the results for that to be the case.

Quote:
But you can never have a fair and equitable result if you use unfair and non-equitable means to get there.

If I have "3" and you have "6" after meeting the exact same criterion, then things are not fair. If someone then gives me "3" and gives you "0", that is not an equitable thing for them to do, but then we are fair.

K?

Gah, you're exhausting. Forget it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#263 Mar 03 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Kachi wrote:
If I have "3" and you have "6" after meeting the exact same criterion, then things are not fair. If someone then gives me "3" and gives you "0", that is not an equitable thing for them to do, but then we are fair.

K?

Gah, you're exhausting. Forget it.


I must be exhausting, too, 'cause I don't understand that one bit.
#264 Mar 03 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Except that if everyone follows that same approach, then no new money will ever flow into those communities either. Thus, they'll always be poor and never improve their condition.


Sigh. Everyone isn't SUPPOSED to follow that approach. I JUST said that.


But if you fight for the acceptance of the idea, why do you think it would be restricted to just those you think should use it? Social concepts don't tend to be that targeted or granular in nature. Also, if the groups in question turtle up inside their own communities, when or why would someone else travel into their community to do business?

Like I keep saying, self-segregation is most harmful to those who do it.

Quote:
Actually, it's largely because of redistricting issues that essentially re-segregated schools (alongside still unfair employment practices), grouping low income minorities into areas where they could essentially only afford to live in areas where government money wasn't being proportionately distributed to public services and facilities.


There are poor white people too. In fact, there are more numerically than there are poor black people. So the reasons that black people tend to congregate into racially focused communities can't just be because of income level. There are other factors. You're correct that redistricting had something to do with it, but I'll point out here that much of the post-civil rights segregation occurred at the behest of some civil rights leaders who encouraged blacks to move from their homes scattered around the country and into high density inner city neighborhoods where they'd be able to gain majorities in those districts and thus increase representation in the government.

Which worked out great for those civil rights groups and for the political leaders they gained. Didn't work out very well at all for the black folks who now found themselves in poverty and with no way out. But now they could use that political representation to lobby for government assistance, right? That's also a trap though, and that's what leads us to where we are now. I agree that it's not a simple situation, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that the good intentions of many of the leaders of the very groups who are today suffering are partially or even largely to blame for that condition.

Quote:
Quote:
But you can never have a fair and equitable result if you use unfair and non-equitable means to get there.

If I have "3" and you have "6" after meeting the exact same criterion, then things are not fair.


Why not? If the rules used to determine which of us gets a 3 and which gets a 6 are fair, then the result is fair. It's not "equal". But fair doesn't mean "equal result". And neither does "equitable" btw. Equitable means that the result is not influenced by bias or partiality. When you adjust the result after the fact, you are not being fair and equitable.


Quote:
If someone then gives me "3" and gives you "0", that is not an equitable thing for them to do, but then we are fair.


No. We are "equal". But you haven't shown the value of an equal result here. If you and I both work for the same employer in sales, and I generate more sales than you do, and our commissions are based on those sales, then it's completely fair for me to make more money than you. I'm producing more value for our employer, right? And even if the reason I'm able to make more sales seems unfair to you, it's unreasonable to expect our employer to pay you the same amount. Our wages should be related to the value we provide for our employer. The idea that all wages should be the same is frankly absurd.

The issue goes deeper than that though. Let's say that the reason you believe that you can't make as much money is because our customer base is biased against you due to your race. That could be true. Or it might not be. There's no way to definitively say. However, if in the interest of balancing out your assumption that institutional racism is causing the discrepancy of our incomes, we pay you more even though you aren't producing as much, we have now disconnected your wages from your performance. It's all well and good to assume that you and I put in the same effort, so we should receive the same reward. But how do we know this in the future? If we always simply adjust your result to equal mine, then you kinda have no reason to do more than the bare minimum, right?


And that's the ultimate problem with this approach. It actually encourages the group that is being "helped out" to be less productive over time (or at least removes some of the incentive to be more productive). In the long run, that means that the unadjusted differential will get larger, not smaller. But if we're operating on the assumption that the differential is caused by institutional racism, we'll just keep adjusting for it, things will keep appearing to get worse, and conditions will never improve for you and your group. We now cannot get an accurate read on the "real" conditions. Our own actions have skewed them. It becomes self-perpetuating.


Again, if you are a political leader or member of an activist group this is great. The problem gets worse, you gain power and influence as a key part of the solution. The members of the group become increasingly reliant on you for help, and will be more likely to support you and your political agenda. There's a whole **** of a lot of interest for those leaders to sustain the condition of poverty for their group members. And if they can do it while convincing those people that they are helping, and are in fact their best hope for success? That's even better!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#265 Mar 03 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
No. We are "equal". But you haven't shown the value of an equal result here. If you and I both work for the same employer in sales, and I generate more sales than you do, and our commissions are based on those sales, then it's completely fair for me to make more money than you. I'm producing more value for our employer, right? And even if the reason I'm able to make more sales seems unfair to you, it's unreasonable to expect our employer to pay you the same amount. Our wages should be related to the value we provide for our employer. The idea that all wages should be the same is frankly absurd.


I said "after meeting the exact same criterion," and that's the point, you dolt.

You can't even get this, so I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Quote:
I must be exhausting, too, 'cause I don't understand that one bit.


You, on the other hand, I will explain it to provided you tell me what exactly you don't understand.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#266 Mar 03 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Kachi wrote:
I said "after meeting the exact same criterion," and that's the point, you dolt.


What the **** do you mean by this? What criteria are you using? Lots of people get paid different amounts of money, even though on paper they have the same qualifications. And not everyone who applies for a job gets it, even if they have the same qualifications. And not everyone does the same quality of work even if they have the same background and title.

There's no exact criterion here. You're just looking at the end result, seeing that they aren't the same, and arguing that we should make it so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#267 Mar 03 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Almalieque The Awesome wrote:
I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.
Actually. This is the very first time in this thread that you have clearly made that statement. In fact, this is precisely the statement I've been trying to dig out of you for a good 3 pages of this thread.


Almalieque on Page 5 wrote:
That's why I said that it's important to support the people who are supporting you. It doesn't necessarily have to be of the same race, but in many cases it is. That is why I was generalizing, but Gbaji wasn't grasping that concept. Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race and the products that you desire (movies, clothes, music, food, etc.) are done by the same race. So, if you want to support your community and/or support the things that you desire, then you have to support those people, which is primarily people of your own race. It's NOT necessarily choosing to do business with a random black person because s/he is black. I'm not naive to not know that indeed is the case sometimes, but that wasn't ever my point.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:
1. I've already stated that your family is your race and that your friends are more than likely of the same race. So, while there is a possibility that they are not the same, the probability is low enough that for simplicity is easier to say minorities.

2. No where did I imply that it was some what wrong to want to do business with a white stranger, but it's more beneficial to do business with people that are going to bring their success back into your community and family, which according to #1 above, is more than likely the people of your own race.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:

Dude... why would you think everyone in your race is your family. I said the exact opposite. People in your family are typically your race, along with your friends. These are the people that care the most about you. This isn't about solely supporting a specific race, but supporting the people who supports you, whom just so happens to be the same race as you.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:
That's because you fail to understand the term racist. Favoritism isn't racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior and or inferior to another race.

Let me rephrase my sentence then. You should support your family and friends who live in your neighborhoods and have the same interests as you, who just so happen to be of the same ethnicity 95% of the time.


Amalieque on Page 3 wrote:
That's why I clarified to you and said that I wasn't going to sugarcoat it to you. You're under this misconception of racism. Your family IS your race. Your friends are more than likely your race as well. Taking care of the people in your community who are taking care of you is taking care of yourself.



Almalieque trying to explain to you that you don't understand on page 4 wrote:
Your statements of understanding of my argument are wrong You're missing key elements which make them seem the way you are portraying them. Rather if its from my bad explaining or your bad interpretation, either way, it's wrong and I'm trying to show you, but you're not wanting to listen.


I think those are enough examples..

Gbaji wrote:
I disagreed with your original statement. Now that you have reversed your position on that issue, I have no issue with that regard.


As demonstrated above, I have been consistent. It is clear that you have a biased feeling towards this subject and will ignore any contradictory information. That is the reason why you will spend 3 pages arguing about not arguing on topic and refuse to answer my questions.

You got caught up in labels, making arguments that labels shouldn't be used. Yet, you have no problems with "Chinese food", "Mexican Food", "Japanese Sushi", "Egyptian Music", etc. You made statements about how it's bad for a race to do business with each other, yet you expressed no dislike to "China towns" "little Tokyo's" or "Asian super markets".

You refuse to accept the fact that our history has just made it taboo to mention black/white. You go so far to not know the difference between a Chinese movie vs an American movie with Chinese actors. And no, "Jive talk" has nothing to do with being a "Black Movie", since "Black Movies" are "American Movies".


Edited, Mar 4th 2011 5:01am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#268 Mar 03 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

What the **** do you mean by this? What criteria are you using? Lots of people get paid different amounts of money, even though on paper they have the same qualifications. And not everyone who applies for a job gets it, even if they have the same qualifications. And not everyone does the same quality of work even if they have the same background and title.

There's no exact criterion here. You're just looking at the end result, seeing that they aren't the same, and arguing that we should make it so.


You made a broad statement and I showed how it is logically incorrect. Obviously the criterion for determining disparities in minorities is not so simple. Obviously pay in the US is not merely a factor of ability and hard work, though. If you need me to delineate why, well, you might, but I'm not going to.

I've resigned myself to the fact that you are either too dumb, or too intentionally obtuse to understand this.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#269 Mar 04 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Almalieque The Awesome wrote:
I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.
Actually. This is the very first time in this thread that you have clearly made that statement. In fact, this is precisely the statement I've been trying to dig out of you for a good 3 pages of this thread.


Almalieque on Page 5 wrote:
That's why I said that it's important to support the people who are supporting you. It doesn't necessarily have to be of the same race, but in many cases it is. That is why I was generalizing, but Gbaji wasn't grasping that concept. Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race and the products that you desire (movies, clothes, music, food, etc.) are done by the same race. So, if you want to support your community and/or support the things that you desire, then you have to support those people, which is primarily people of your own race. It's NOT necessarily choosing to do business with a random black person because s/he is black. I'm not naive to not know that indeed is the case sometimes, but that wasn't ever my point.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:
1. I've already stated that your family is your race and that your friends are more than likely of the same race. So, while there is a possibility that they are not the same, the probability is low enough that for simplicity is easier to say minorities.

2. No where did I imply that it was some what wrong to want to do business with a white stranger, but it's more beneficial to do business with people that are going to bring their success back into your community and family, which according to #1 above, is more than likely the people of your own race.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:

Dude... why would you think everyone in your race is your family. I said the exact opposite. People in your family are typically your race, along with your friends. These are the people that care the most about you. This isn't about solely supporting a specific race, but supporting the people who supports you, whom just so happens to be the same race as you.


Almalieque on Page 3 wrote:
That's because you fail to understand the term racist. Favoritism isn't racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior and or inferior to another race.

Let me rephrase my sentence then. You should support your family and friends who live in your neighborhoods and have the same interests as you, who just so happen to be of the same ethnicity 95% of the time.


Amalieque on Page 3 wrote:
That's why I clarified to you and said that I wasn't going to sugarcoat it to you. You're under this misconception of racism. Your family IS your race. Your friends are more than likely your race as well. Taking care of the people in your community who are taking care of you is taking care of yourself.



Almalieque trying to explain to you that you don't understand on page 4 wrote:
Your statements of understanding of my argument are wrong You're missing key elements which make them seem the way you are portraying them. Rather if its from my bad explaining or your bad interpretation, either way, it's wrong and I'm trying to show you, but you're not wanting to listen.


I think those are enough examples..



Lol! I can't imagine where I got the impression that you were talking about people's race. You only keep connecting the "group of people you should help out" with race. Over, and over, and over and over. All while insisting that you weren't doing that! It's like watching Archie Bunker insist that he's not a racist; he just doesn't like black people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Mar 04 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Lol! I can't imagine where I got the impression that you were talking about people's race. You only keep connecting the "group of people you should help out" with race. Over, and over, and over and over. All while insisting that you weren't doing that! It's like watching Archie Bunker insist that he's not a racist; he just doesn't like black people.


So, you basically admitted that you failed to read correctly. I clearly stated that I was not specifically talking about a specific race, but it's majority minorities in the neighborhoods that I'm referring to. So, for simplicity, I'll say minorities.

You can take that however you want, but you can't claim that I'm promoting to NOT support a white guy in your neighborhood because he's white. I just said that I wasn't talking about a specific race. You can't bold the latter part of my statement and say I meant something else. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Gbaji wrote:
That's why I find it incredibly dangerous and harmful to be so accepting of the notion that it's perfectly ok for groups of people to align themselves upon racial lines and deliberately choose to help out their own group because of those racial differences. I just think that's thinking that flies in the face of 5 or 6 hundred years of intellectual thought and social advancement.


You're only saying that because you obviously never been a minority in any meaningful situation. Go live in a foreign country for a year where people don't look like you or speak a language that you speak, has a complete different culture and tell me if you still think the same.

That's why I asked if China Towns, Little Tokyos and Asian supermarkets equally offend you?

Gbaji wrote:

I didn't say they would re-instate slavery. That's a strawman. I said that they would continue to use the legal benefits they are being given even after the socio-economic scales have been balanced and the reasons those benefits were enacted no longer exist. How much so, and what form that takes is completely unknown. I'm simply saying that unless the very attitude you seem to think is perfectly acceptable is rejected by those groups, this *will* happen.


Besides the fact that we'll never get to that point, if it did, then the new minority, "white people" will have the same "legal benefits" that the former minority had. Exactly what "legal benefits" are you talking about anyway?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#271 Mar 04 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Kachi wrote:
You made a broad statement and I showed how it is logically incorrect.


No. You applied an undefined condition to your statement and are using it to justify a conclusion without any real support. My "broad statement" is simply that we can't (or shouldn't) simply assume that differing outcomes must automatically mean that the process which derived those outcomes is "unfair".

Given that we see completely fair contests derive unequal results all the time, I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. When two sports teams play each other, one wins and one loses. Sometimes, the scores are dramatically different. Yet the rules they both play by are "fair".

What you are arguing is that if one team consistently wins against the other we should adjust the rules of the game to give the losing team an advantage in order to even up the final score. So instead of needing 10 yards to get a first down, they only need 8. Or perhaps we give them a touchdown if they cross the 20 yard line instead of the end zone. All of these can certainly address the unequal game outcomes, but they aren't fair at all. If there are systemic issues (like salary advantages by one team over another), those can be addressed in other ways. But gaming the system to change the outcome isn't a good way to do this.


Quote:
Obviously the criterion for determining disparities in minorities is not so simple. Obviously pay in the US is not merely a factor of ability and hard work, though.


But you assume that if a black employee is being paid less than a white one, that this must be caused by institutionalized racism. That's a pretty specific and narrow assumption though, isn't it? You say that determining the criterion is not so simple, yet you insist on coming to the most simplistic conclusion possible.

Don't you see how this is questionable reasoning?

Quote:
I've resigned myself to the fact that you are either too dumb, or too intentionally obtuse to understand this.


Which is a strange thing to say. I understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't agree with it. Trying to fix outcome differentials by race within society by adjusting the rules to give one racial group an advantage over the other is counter productive. I've explained in great detail why this is true. In response, you seem to want to just keep insisting that I'm wrong and that I must be dumb if I don't see why.

That's not really a good argument though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Mar 04 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Lol! I can't imagine where I got the impression that you were talking about people's race. You only keep connecting the "group of people you should help out" with race. Over, and over, and over and over. All while insisting that you weren't doing that! It's like watching Archie Bunker insist that he's not a racist; he just doesn't like black people.


So, you basically admitted that you failed to read correctly. I clearly stated that I was not specifically talking about a specific race, but it's majority minorities in the neighborhoods that I'm referring to. So, for simplicity, I'll say minorities.


You're kidding, right? You said that minorities should help out members of their own minority group. when I called you on it, instead of saying "yeah. I meant members of a community should help out their community regardless of racial/ethnic criteria", you instead embarked upon a multi-page posting spree trying to insist that connecting race into the issue wasn't really about race. You were just talking about groups of people who "happen to most often be of the same race".

Really? Look. I'm not Joph. I'll allow you to say that you misspoke and you meant to say something other than what you actually said. I'll allow you to correct that statement and move on and I wont even try to insist that since you corrected yourself you are admitting that you're wrong about everything related to said issue. I don't play that game. If you want to correct your original statement, then do so. But when you spend pages of posts trying to twist the language around in order to claim simultaneously that you didn't really say what you said *and* that what you said wasn't really wrong anyway, it just makes you look foolish.


Can't you just drop this and move on?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#273 Mar 04 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? You said that minorities should help out members of their own minority group. when I called you on it, instead of saying "yeah. I meant members of a community should help out their community regardless of racial/ethnic criteria",


Once again, your failure to read isn't my problem. I stated it multiple times and even requoted them for you.

Quote:
Really? Look. I'm not Joph. I'll allow you to say that you misspoke


How can I have misspoken, when the evidence is right there in your face.

That's like me starting off a discussion on breast cancer with "Although both men and women can suffer from breast cancer, I'll focus on the dangers of breast cancer with women since they are at a greater risk". Then you say that I implied that men don't suffer from breast cancer because I chose to talk about women.

That's what a disclaimer is for. You simply failed to read my comments correctly and opposed to manning up and admitting that you were wrong the entire time, you want to try to turn this around on me.

Gbaji wrote:

That's why I find it incredibly dangerous and harmful to be so accepting of the notion that it's perfectly ok for groups of people to align themselves upon racial lines and deliberately choose to help out their own group because of those racial differences. I just think that's thinking that flies in the face of 5 or 6 hundred years of intellectual thought and social advancement.



You're only saying that because you obviously never been a minority in any meaningful situation. Go live in a foreign country for a year where people don't look like you or speak a language that you speak, has a complete different culture and tell me if you still think the same.

That's why I asked if China Towns, Little Tokyos and Asian supermarkets equally offend you?

Gbaji wrote:


I didn't say they would re-instate slavery. That's a strawman. I said that they would continue to use the legal benefits they are being given even after the socio-economic scales have been balanced and the reasons those benefits were enacted no longer exist. How much so, and what form that takes is completely unknown. I'm simply saying that unless the very attitude you seem to think is perfectly acceptable is rejected by those groups, this *will* happen.



Besides the fact that we'll never get to that point, if it did, then the new minority, "white people" will have the same "legal benefits" that the former minority had. Exactly what "legal benefits" are you talking about anyway?


Edited, Mar 5th 2011 2:42am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#274 Mar 04 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
My boss told me today that a wife of one of our clients has "an affinity for the gays." He said that her business management out in CA is "full of *** people." That the guy who owns the company is ***, and he'll only hire *** people, and he will only recommend *** lawyers, *** gardeners, *** whatever-he's-recommending.

My boss exaggerates a lot, but it made me think of this thread and I couldn't decide how I felt about it. He started explaining it to me by asking if I remembered when Nashville tried to put out a "Christian phone book," where you could find a Christian plumber or gardener, which he said was idiotic. Then said that this guy in CA was like that, only about people who were ***.

I'm sort of on the fence about this idea now. I don't think it's inherently bad, or will lead to enslaving another race or anything like that, but put in this context, it sounds kind of stupid... I mean, if that's what he goes for, and the people he's recommending to don't mind, then whatever, I guess. But if a straight guy is a better lawyer, and this guy recommends a *** guy to his clients simply because of his sexual orientation, that's not acceptable...

ETA: For the record, this conversation came about because I found out this family was withholding donations to Belmont College until they got their current situation about the homosexual soccer coach straightened out. (No pun intended...)

Edited, Mar 4th 2011 6:43pm by Belkira
#275 Mar 04 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
My boss told me today that a wife of one of our clients has "an affinity for the gays." He said that her business management out in CA is "full of *** people." That the guy who owns the company is ***, and he'll only hire *** people, and he will only recommend *** lawyers, *** gardeners, *** whatever-he's-recommending.

My boss exaggerates a lot, but it made me think of this thread and I couldn't decide how I felt about it. He started explaining it to me by asking if I remembered when Nashville tried to put out a "Christian phone book," where you could find a Christian plumber or gardener, which he said was idiotic. Then said that this guy in CA was like that, only about people who were ***.

I'm sort of on the fence about this idea now. I don't think it's inherently bad, or will lead to enslaving another race or anything like that, but put in this context, it sounds kind of stupid... I mean, if that's what he goes for, and the people he's recommending to don't mind, then whatever, I guess. But if a straight guy is a better lawyer, and this guy recommends a *** guy to his clients simply because of his sexual orientation, that's not acceptable...

ETA: For the record, this conversation came about because I found out this family was withholding donations to Belmont College until they got their current situation about the homosexual soccer coach straightened out. (No pun intended...)

Edited, Mar 4th 2011 6:43pm by Belkira


Your personal preferences are just that. I don't care if you prefer to date a certain race, certain ***, etc., but when it comes to hiring people, that irritates me. I saw this a lot in the last presidential election. People were voting and not voting for Clinton and Obama because of their *** and skin color.

I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#276 Mar 04 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#277 Mar 04 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? You said that minorities should help out members of their own minority group. when I called you on it, instead of saying "yeah. I meant members of a community should help out their community regardless of racial/ethnic criteria",


Once again, your failure to read isn't my problem. I stated it multiple times and even requoted them for you.


What is the "it" you think you stated multiple times? Because what I saw you do multiple times and which you blithely re-quoted was your own attempts to justify your assumed correlation between community and race.

How about I quote what you first said which started this (again):

Quote:
Because once again, you're confused. If black people don't support black business, then no one else will. That doesn't mean go out and hang white people from trees and spray them with water hoses. You're just supporting my claim earlier. You are just paranoid when something doesn't favor your way.

In order to be independent and successful, ethnic minorities have to support each other. That's not racism, that's business and economics. That's how you build a community. The alternate would be to rely on others, that creates the "hand out" issue that we discussed earlier.


I don't agree with this. Period. I think that by adopting such an insular approach and then basing it on race, you are actually harming that racial group in the long run. And the community you are building isn't going to be so great. Oh. And that community will be more dependent on hand outs than those which don't do this.

And guess what? There are decades of social statistics which bear out what I"m saying.

Edited, Mar 4th 2011 5:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#278 Mar 04 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#279 Mar 04 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?


****. I'm having a hard time reading more than parts of it. Alma keeps reposting irrelevant paragraphs as though they are some kind of posting goldmine or something. It's hard as **** just to keep the debate somewhat on track. It's like trying to have a conversation with an extreme ADD kid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#280 Mar 04 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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.

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


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.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#281 Mar 05 2011 at 2:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
My boss told me today that a wife of one of our clients has "an affinity for the gays." He said that her business management out in CA is "full of *** people." That the guy who owns the company is ***, and he'll only hire *** people, and he will only recommend *** lawyers, *** gardeners, *** whatever-he's-recommending.

My boss exaggerates a lot, but it made me think of this thread and I couldn't decide how I felt about it. He started explaining it to me by asking if I remembered when Nashville tried to put out a "Christian phone book," where you could find a Christian plumber or gardener, which he said was idiotic. Then said that this guy in CA was like that, only about people who were ***.

I'm sort of on the fence about this idea now. I don't think it's inherently bad, or will lead to enslaving another race or anything like that, but put in this context, it sounds kind of stupid... I mean, if that's what he goes for, and the people he's recommending to don't mind, then whatever, I guess. But if a straight guy is a better lawyer, and this guy recommends a *** guy to his clients simply because of his sexual orientation, that's not acceptable...

ETA: For the record, this conversation came about because I found out this family was withholding donations to Belmont College until they got their current situation about the homosexual soccer coach straightened out. (No pun intended...)

Edited, Mar 4th 2011 6:43pm by Belkira


Interesting anecdote. I think this actually drives at the issue of fairness. What determines fairness, anyway? We tend to look at it naively from incident to incident, ignoring all that precedes it. If one person is more qualified, then it's only fair that they are more successful. But what if the person who is more qualified had an unfair advantage in becoming more qualified? Is it still unfair? This is an extremely over-simplified question to demonstrate the ethical dilemma. In reality, without an initial equality, it is impossible to establish true fairness. That is why we have systems in place that intend to correct some of the inherent unfairness, if for no other reason than that people who get the shaft in life tend to raise a ruckus about it.

It's this approach that justifies privilege to oppressed groups. They start at a disadvantage, which they typically work together to try to correct collectively. You can disagree with it, but I doubt they'll care, and I don't see why they should. It would be nice if life were simple enough that we could gauge fairness on a case by case basis, but you can't call it a fair race just because no one was jumping in your way when you started off a mile behind.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#282 Mar 05 2011 at 6:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?


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.

Gbaji wrote:
What is the "it" you think you stated multiple times? Because what I saw you do multiple times and which you blithely re-quoted was your own attempts to justify your assumed correlation between community and race.

How about I quote what you first said which started this (again):


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.

Quote:
I don't agree with this. Period. I think that by adopting such an insular approach and then basing it on race, you are actually harming that racial group in the long run. And the community you are building isn't going to be so great. Oh. And that community will be more dependent on hand outs than those which don't do this.


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.

Gbaji wrote:
And guess what? There are decades of social statistics which bear out what I"m saying.


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.

Quote:
****. I'm having a hard time reading more than parts of it. Alma keeps reposting irrelevant paragraphs as though they are some kind of posting goldmine or something. It's hard as **** just to keep the debate somewhat on track. It's like trying to have a conversation with an extreme ADD kid.


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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#283 Mar 05 2011 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?
If someone specifically states "only" then I myself, don't see a difference.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#284 Mar 05 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't get offended when someone says " I only date black or white women", but I think their cheating their experiences. I do get offended when someone says "I only hire black or white women".


How is that different than "I only shop at black stores"?
If someone specifically states "only" then I myself, don't see a difference.


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..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#285 Mar 05 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#286 Mar 05 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



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 *** 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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#287 Mar 05 2011 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Just curious, does anyone read more than 2% of an argument between Gbaji & alma?


I read a couple of posts from Alma once. I don't think I'll ever do it again.
#288 Mar 05 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



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 *** 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.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#289 Mar 05 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to "only hire vs only shop". I don't see shopping as a personal preference. If it's convenient, sure. But if you're near a white owned store and have to go out of your way to get to a black owned store, that's not preference.



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 *** 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.


Well, you first have to admit to yourself that there will never be a "color-blind" society, the best we can hope for is a tolerant society that understands our differences.

Second, as you equally despise that attitude in bold as I do, we have to accept the fact that there are misguided people in society and make an effort to enlighten them.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#290 Mar 05 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, you first have to admit to yourself that there will never be a "color-blind" society, the best we can hope for is a tolerant society that understands our differences.


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.

Quote:
Second, as you equally despise that attitude in bold as I do, we have to accept the fact that there are misguided people in society and make an effort to enlighten them.


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
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#291 Mar 05 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Eske wrote:
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.


Ok, I can buy that.

Eske wrote:
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.


I don't consider your behavior of wanting to see white athletes the same, IMO. I'm personally referring to extreme behaviors. I know people that if it isn't about a certain race, then they don't want to hear about it and isn't worth anything.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#292 Mar 05 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Kachi wrote:
Interesting anecdote. I think this actually drives at the issue of fairness. What determines fairness, anyway? We tend to look at it naively from incident to incident, ignoring all that precedes it. If one person is more qualified, then it's only fair that they are more successful. But what if the person who is more qualified had an unfair advantage in becoming more qualified? Is it still unfair? This is an extremely over-simplified question to demonstrate the ethical dilemma. In reality, without an initial equality, it is impossible to establish true fairness. That is why we have systems in place that intend to correct some of the inherent unfairness, if for no other reason than that people who get the shaft in life tend to raise a ruckus about it.


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.


Quote:
It's this approach that justifies privilege to oppressed groups. They start at a disadvantage, which they typically work together to try to correct collectively. You can disagree with it, but I doubt they'll care, and I don't see why they should. It would be nice if life were simple enough that we could gauge fairness on a case by case basis, but you can't call it a fair race just because no one was jumping in your way when you started off a mile behind.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Mar 05 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I do feel a little bad that you wrote all that and I'm not even gonna read it, but I did kind of warn you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#294 Mar 05 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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".


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".

Gbaji wrote:
And IMO the very ideas that Alma tosses out there are part of the problem, not the solution.


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?

Gbaji wrote:
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.


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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#295 Mar 05 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Kachi wrote:
I do feel a little bad that you wrote all that and I'm not even gonna read it, but I did kind of warn you.


Don't feel bad at all. I ask him hard hitting questions and he blatantly brushes them off as "irrelevant" even though they are directly questioning his claims.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#296 Mar 06 2011 at 12:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:55pm by ShadorVIII
#297 Mar 06 2011 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Kachi wrote:

Quote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.


Of course you don't get it. YOU'RE WHITE. When you're white and you live in a systemically white culture, whiteness is something you take for granted. Black people have their own culture, but they live in that same systemically white culture, unless they develop a cultural pocket. What you don't understand is that for many black people, this is similar to being a foreigner in a foreign country. There are customs, behaviors, products, etc... that they aren't familiar with even in their own country, because they don't come from a white culture. Other people look down on them if they are boisterous, which is just a part of the culture-- in other countries, we are looked down on for the same thing.


Look at your sentence and really think about it. You are so very close to understanding a real, equitable, fair solution to the the whole problem of racial tension that it makes me weep. Here's a hint. Research the FULL EXTENT of what Abraham Lincoln proposed when he wrote up the Emancipation Proclimation (his speeches about this can be readily found) in conjunction with the the history of the African nation of Liberia.


No.

Way to not make any actual points, though. If you're going to suggest that an old white man has the solution to our racial ails, at least argue for the position.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#298 Mar 06 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Kachi wrote:
If I have "3" and you have "6" after meeting the exact same criterion, then things are not fair. If someone then gives me "3" and gives you "0", that is not an equitable thing for them to do, but then we are fair.

K?

Gah, you're exhausting. Forget it.


I must be exhausting, too, 'cause I don't understand that one bit.


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
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#299 Mar 06 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Yes, but this was clarified simply via PM some time ago. I also admitted that I wasn't especially clear, because I generally try not to invest much (at least not more than amuses me) in explaining things to gbaji. I would wager gbaji remains alone in his failure to comprehend it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#300 Mar 07 2011 at 2:11 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Kavekk wrote:
two wongs made a white.


FTFY.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#301 Mar 07 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
So according to gbaji white peeps should only shop at stores owned by blacks.

Here's the rest:

Black peeps shop at stores owned by Orientals, and Orientals should only shop at stores owned by Latinos and Latinos should only shop at stores owned by Indians.

K, is everone clear where they'll be buying their peanut butter?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
cynyck, Debalic, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (37)