Flint and Jackson both appear to be directed at blue areas rather than black areas. Standard GOP procedure is to starve the blue areas.
The Bible has rape. Ban it from schools!
Such tests need to make sure the test subjects present as equally worthy. It's not just the numbers, it's the impression they give. There are plenty of examples in the news of wealthy people not getting shown things etc because they don't appear to be able to afford it. It's something very hard to enumerate but it's going to make a serious difference.Systematic racism in not just about outrageous police murders of black American men. It is about much, much more. See OP quote #2 from Lee Atwater. Do you really think today's disenfranchment of black American voters nationwide is not systematic racism?
The Test Used To Expose Housing Discrimination And Its Chicago Roots
The test: Send two people to the same landlord to see if they’re treated differently. It’s a practice dating back to MLK’s time in Chicago.www.wbez.org
No. We see the legislature claiming the camel's nose is in the tent when in reality there's no camel about. It's a false flag--this is actually about removing any depiction of reality that doesn't match their ideal.What on earth makes you think I seem to not understand this? I understand it perfectly. It's the rest of you who seem not to understand this! Legislators perceive a camel peeking its nose under the state tent: a state employee abusing his state-provided authority over a state-supplied captive audience to preach his own personal religious view, say, that color-blind policies are racist, so the legislators are taking a sledgehammer to it. They are doing exactly what you advocate! And how do you react? You say "you don't use a battleship to go bird hunting."!?! Why???
You say "Take a sledgehammer to any camel's nose that peeks under the state tent." -- and that's a consistent position you for some reason think I need a lecture about even though it's exactly what I've been arguing for -- but what you apparently really mean is "Take a sledgehammer to that camel's nose that peeks under the state tent, but don't lift a finger to stop this camel's nose that peeks under the state tent until the entire camel is inside the state tent en masse being a systemic state tent camel."
Everyone has obstacles. Some have more than others. We should be focusing on teaching people to overcome obstacles. Obstacle removal is only warranted when they actually block the way, not merely hinder it a bit.
There might be some small place with barriers that are sufficient to stop someone. If so, deal with them. Do not, however, burden all of society with an obsession of removing obstacles for black people when everyone faces obstacles. The focus should be on overcoming obstacles, not on putting blame for obstacles.
You might or might not, depending on how you understand "anti-racism", as this can describe many different problems and pragmatic methodologies, not all of which are relevant to economics. But, either way, you certainly do address systemic racism by combatting poverty. Some anti-racism efforts are also necessary for combatting both poverty and racism. Almost all such programs are heavily integrated with existing grassroots anti-poverty advocacy efforts, so this is not an either/or proposition, but simply the most obvious approach to addressing both challenges simultaneously. Again, the "insight" that poverty and race are integrally linked is not a new concept. In the sciences, we call that intersectionality theory, and it was synthesized with the existing corpus of critical race theory very early on. One of the foundational texts in critical race theory was Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins (1991), which outlined a methodological approach to measuring and interpreting exactly the sort of "disparate outcomes" you are presumptively trying to discuss.
This accurately describes no program of affirmative action I have ever heard of, in any time period, let alone in the "modern day" ( I presume you mean the last few years, not the entire Modern period). Who exactly are you referring to here?
If racism is the cause of poverty then there would be no white people in poverty. Furthermore, clearly you can't solve white poverty by aiding blacks.
In what fashion is it inaccurate?
That is a false premise.
Affirmative action has never been focused on blame at all, let alone exclusively, and no states or organizations Im aware of have ever claimed that eliminating racism would "magically" erase pocerty, crime, and other problems. That's not what it's for, and no one has made any such promises.
No one has claimed this.
What does this response have to do with the post it is quoting?
I said none of the things you seem to be "responding" to.
Similarly, if intoxication is the cause of road traffic crashes then there would be no crashes caused by sober people.
Ah, but according to LP, it's just a lack of boot straps that's the real problem! If you're black and grew up in a poor neighborhood made that way by decades of systemic discrimination in housing, education, infrastructure and opportunities, the problem is really your lack of ambition! The fact that you get pulled over more often by the police if you venture into the more affluent neighborhood has nothing to do with race! Racism is all in the past!
Yes... I think that almost no one believes the above... because it is clearly false.
