White supremacy run amok

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

@distracted

The section I quoted has two references that highlight ongoing debate on the intentionality of the famine. Regardless, I have no stance on the events at all beyond what I described regarding what we know of these regimes being filtered through propaganda on their side and our side. It's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not a Stalinist or arguing for Stalinism. It's just some strawman raised in response to unrelated calls for more democratic workplaces. Unlike, say, self-described Nazis literally arguing for Nazism...

"Go drive down south and do something about it then. If fascism is on the rise, now is your chance to stop it, right?"

There's the difference. I'm not driving anywhere to go looking for trouble.

If they want to come to my town wearing swastikas, though, my friends and I will be there to meet them.

@Jean:

"Those people aren't nazi or kkk"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the ... Protesters

Looks like a bunch of Nazis and KKK to me.

"Even if some of them are. Most arent. "

Nah, if they're there to unite with white supremacists, they are white supremacists.

"you force them to associate if they dont want to get beaten up by antifas."

Nah, nonsensical persecution complexes force them to associate with Nazis. If they don't want to get beaten up by anti-fascists, they could always... NOT associate with Nazis.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

"And I have to ask myself if race is X percent correlated to poverty, but poverty is 100 percent correlated to poverty, why we are talking about race. If race is X percent correlated with privilege, and class is 100 percent correlated to privilege, why we are talking about race."

Comrade Riggerjack!

The Old Man
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:55 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by The Old Man »

Riggerjack wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:40 am
And I have to ask myself if race is X percent correlated to poverty, but poverty is 100 percent correlated to poverty, why we are talking about race. If race is X percent correlated with privilege, and class is 100 percent correlated to privilege, why we are talking about race....But in each of these threads, we speak of race, as a proxy for the real issues, instead of the real issues.
Simple. It is politics. Race is the narrative. To consider that Social Class is the real underlying issue would mean that -- gasp -- poor whites would need to be included. People don't want to solve real problems.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

@Riggerjack:

Just as a thought experiment, can you imagine ways your life may have been harder if you hadn't been a (straight) white (male) person? If you were born in the same circumstances, but to black parents, or Muslim parents? Or perhaps if you had been born gay? Do you think any events or experiences in your life that might have played out differently?


BTW, there's no need to (somewhat passive aggressively if I may say so) cross-post your question to another thread. I've been posting questions along the lines of exactly what you asked for almost the entire thread and find it quite relevant.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Chad »

Riggerjack wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:40 am

Asians - 84% chance of two parents in family - $75k median income
Whites - 75% chance of two parents in family - $60k median income
Hispanic/Latino - 60% chance of two parent family - $??k median income
Blacks - 35% chance of two parent family - $36k median income

And I have to ask myself if race is X percent correlated to poverty, but poverty is 100 percent correlated to poverty, why we are talking about race. If race is X percent correlated with privilege, and class is 100 percent correlated to privilege, why we are talking about race.
Before I go further, I get your point.

If there are significant differences between races concerning poverty, or associated factors, then there appears to be racial variable in part of the poverty equation. This means what may work to bring some out of poverty won't work for others because the racial variable is too heavy/different in that equation.

So, yes, you are correct that poverty is 100% correlated to poverty, but the "why" is not always the same for everyone.

And, yes, some on the side looking at poverty through race gets blinded by it and makes poor decisions. The question/help should start from the 100% poverty and move down the "tree" breaking out the various groups with their various reasons. Some of the reasons for the different groups would be similar, but some won't be. A failure to do this has helped create Trump and this situation. Though, I don't think it is the only big factor, it is one of the big ones.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE »

GandK wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:07 am
I wonder how many of the 50 states could, on paper, support themselves. I mean everything: food, energy, finances, a positive import/export balance, etc., not just tax flow.
probably not too many, but neither could most small countries. they could (and should) still trade, have division of labor..

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE »

Spartan_Warrior wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:46 am
Again, you just have to be no further right than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Spartan_Warrior previously defined "right" and "left" purely in economic terms. thus it would be 100% orthogonal to race and white supremacy, and therefore have nothing to do with this. does Spartan_Warrior see how his vague definition of terms leads to confusion here?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by BRUTE »

Riggerjack wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:40 am
Asians - 84% chance of two parents in family - $75k median income
Whites - 75% chance of two parents in family - $60k median income
Hispanic/Latino - 60% chance of two parent family - $??k median income
Blacks - 35% chance of two parent family - $36k median income
to brute, the interesting thought is: through what mechanisms or dynamics does the class get propagated or filtered through?

brute is pretty certain that no employer thinks "oh, a black human, probably should receive half the salary the asian human got". and there are of course extremely successful black humans, even in industries where that's not very common.

brute suspects it's secondary and tertiary effects. intact family is likely one of those effects. single parent upbringing means less time spent with parents, statistically likely less education, less economic stability and therefore opportunity to find interests and develop them.. doing extracurricular activities to get in to Harvard is probably hard if there is no food in the fridge for tonight's dinner. Maslow.

but because humans are so illogical and allergic to statistical discussions, as seen with the Google Memo, any mention of this is probably already considered racist.

this is one human habit that has always confused brute. just because some conservative humans argue for two-parent families doesn't mean they hate single black moms. but isn't it pretty undeniable that single parenting is harder than double parenting? why do humans always have to moralize everything?

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

@Brute:

Well, I am pretty sure I also said the left-right economic dynamic tends to be predictive as to the other dynamics (and if I didn't, I should have), and that I was talking in broad political theory terms, specifically not US terms (whereas admittedly the opposite is true now). I also seem to recall ultimately acknowledging that I used the term in a way that is not commonly accepted, and I don't deny the terms are vague and can have various meanings. What I don't see is the point of your comment here or how it undermines my arguments in this thread.

Make it "more socially conservative, more authoritarian, and more capitalistic than Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and every other mainstream conservative or libertarian-style Republican" if that makes the meaning clearer. Though, I think it was pretty clear.


Re: Single-parent families

Yes, that must certainly be a factor in outcomes. Are there theories as to the cause of the disparities? I would be curious as to whether these disparities correlate to similar disparities in incarceration rates and military service. Hard to raise or keep a family when you're in jail for dealing weed or overseas because there were no other apparent options, etc.

Moreover, you can extrapolate the disparities in income that C40 also posted in a similar manner. It is hard to raise a family without income. This is the same cause (inadequate income to support a family) suggested by some to be behind lowered marriage rates for millennials across the board.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: White supremacy run amok

Post by Campitor »

Riggerjack wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:40 am
Now this is a white supremacy thread, so a certain amount of race plays into that, clearly. But this is not the only thread we speak past each other on, dealing with the same topics. But in each of these threads, we speak of race, as a proxy for the real issues, instead of the real issues.

Why is that?
Because its easier to paint society's ills on a particular race (sounds nazi-ish doesn't it?) than to look at the underlying causes and the poor choices made by individuals who behave suboptimally in the richest country on the planet.

Locked