RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Gospel]

Apparently your faith doesn't allow you to see what I'm saying. I care about people. Not about their skin color.

You know what? That’s incredibly respectable. I’m fully behind it, and I’ve put myself on the line for those values more times than I can count. I’ll leave it at that because what you’ve said here truly resonates with me.

 

[Gospel]

True, but that doesn't mean that a movement has a current cause.

That’s exactly my argument against Affirmative Action. It lacks a current justification. If hate crime laws had been established in the 1960s (or even earlier, in my opinion), there wouldn’t have been a need for the appeasement that Affirmative Action represents. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) feels like just an updated version of the same flawed approach.

 

[Gospel]

Look, when I say racists white people I'm not talking about you unless you're a racists white person. You don't see me jumping to the defense of niggas that want to see me dead on these streets everyday? Fuck them niggas. Sorry if this language sounds Unkempt and raw I'm just not running what I say through chat gpt this time.

Edit: this post wasn't meant for Loren it was a public service announcement.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

 

[lostone]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

When I was a boy we owned a dozen or so low rent homes and and three farms, less than 30 acres all, but barely made enough income from all of that to survive. This was in NE NC. My family, who owned them all jointly with my uncle, sold all of them for a pittance and my parents basically had only their own home and social security.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True, but that doesn't mean that a movement has a current cause.

That’s exactly my argument against Affirmative Action. It lacks a current justification. If hate crime laws had been established in the 1960s (or even earlier, in my opinion), there wouldn’t have been a need for the appeasement that Affirmative Action represents. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) feels like just an updated version of the same flawed approach.

Affirmative action was put forth to accelerate the erasure of the caste lines between whites and blacks. In order to erase the caste lines, blacks needed to be allowed an accelerated path towards opportunities, otherwise, advances in education and employment would have been slower and required several more generations to make opportunities more available based on relative qualifications. Let's be clear, blacks aren't genetically inferior, I honestly think a lot of people don't get that. So when the statistics show massive incongruities based on race, that implies outside pressures are "fucking things up". In America's case: economic inertia, criminal justice system, poverty.

Is Affirmative Action fair to those other people who weren't responsible for ensuring blacks couldn't read, couldn't vote, acted out race riots among economically successful blacks, strung blacks up in trees? Not really, but is it fair that rich people pay more in taxes? Is it fair that my taxes pay for other people to not have to work? Is it fair poorer people can have better access to colleges than middle class people?

Fuck "what is fair"! Let's think about what is needed to make things just. And things aren't just yet.

 

[Gospel]

True, but that doesn't mean that a movement has a current cause.

That’s exactly my argument against Affirmative Action. It lacks a current justification. If hate crime laws had been established in the 1960s (or even earlier, in my opinion), there wouldn’t have been a need for the appeasement that Affirmative Action represents. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) feels like just an updated version of the same flawed approach.

Affirmative action was put forth to accelerate the erasure of the caste lines between whites and blacks. In order to erase the caste lines, blacks needed to be allowed an accelerated path towards opportunities, otherwise, advances in education and employment would have been slower and required several more generations to make opportunities more available based on relative qualifications. Let's be clear, blacks aren't genetically inferior, I honestly think a lot of people don't get that. So when the statistics show massive incongruities based on race, that implies outside pressures are "fucking things up". In America's case: economic inertia, criminal justice system, poverty.

Is Affirmative Action fair to those other people who weren't responsible for ensuring blacks couldn't read, couldn't vote, acted out race riots among economically successful blacks, strung blacks up in trees? Not really, but is it fair that rich people pay more in taxes? Is it fair that my taxes pay for other people to not have to work? Is it fair poorer people can have better access to colleges than middle class people?

Fuck "what is fair"! Let's think about what is needed to make things just. And things aren't just yet.

Making it a hate crime to knowingly or unknowingly violate someone’s constitutional rights based on a protected class, with penalties ranging from 2 to 20 years in prison, would have done just as much—if not more—than affirmative action or any DEI initiatives. America has been way too soft on racists, coddling them instead of laying down the law: do the right thing or get fucked.

 

[thebeave]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

Yep. My extended family has owned 600 acres of forestland in the Sierra Foothills for 99 years now (starting with my long dead grandfather). We made some money in 1957 and in 1974 selling some timber, and in 1982 we sold some rock for emergency road building for a small chunk of change. Due to the collapse of the timber industry in California in recent years and a major wildfire that swept through in 2020 we are unlikely to ever make any more timber sales. So, that's 96 years of negative net income (paying for taxes, insurance and maintenance) and 3 years of income. The land is essentially worthless as a moneymaker, but the recreational value is priceless.

 

[Gospel]

For example, if a bank is found to engage in unfair practices, any individual involved in perpetuating racist practices within the corporation would face immediate legal consequences. If it's determined that these issues are systemic and driven by leadership, we would then hold each individual up the chain accountable, potentially leading to arrests at all levels. Fuck em.

 

[thebeave]

Look, when I say racists white people I'm not talking about you unless you're a racists white person. You don't see me jumping to the defense of niggas that want to see me dead on these streets everyday? Fuck them niggas. Sorry if this language sounds Unkempt and raw I'm just not running what I say through chat gpt this time.

Edit: this post wasn't meant for Loren it was a public service announcement.

You should watch Chris Rock's take on this. Its hilarious....youtube has it.

 

[Gospel]

Bring the pain

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True, but that doesn't mean that a movement has a current cause.

That’s exactly my argument against Affirmative Action. It lacks a current justification. If hate crime laws had been established in the 1960s (or even earlier, in my opinion), there wouldn’t have been a need for the appeasement that Affirmative Action represents. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) feels like just an updated version of the same flawed approach.

Affirmative action was put forth to accelerate the erasure of the caste lines between whites and blacks. In order to erase the caste lines, blacks needed to be allowed an accelerated path towards opportunities, otherwise, advances in education and employment would have been slower and required several more generations to make opportunities more available based on relative qualifications. Let's be clear, blacks aren't genetically inferior, I honestly think a lot of people don't get that. So when the statistics show massive incongruities based on race, that implies outside pressures are "fucking things up". In America's case: economic inertia, criminal justice system, poverty.

Is Affirmative Action fair to those other people who weren't responsible for ensuring blacks couldn't read, couldn't vote, acted out race riots among economically successful blacks, strung blacks up in trees? Not really, but is it fair that rich people pay more in taxes? Is it fair that my taxes pay for other people to not have to work? Is it fair poorer people can have better access to colleges than middle class people?

Fuck "what is fair"! Let's think about what is needed to make things just. And things aren't just yet.

Making it a hate crime to knowingly or unknowingly violate someone’s constitutional rights based on a protected class, with penalties ranging from 2 to 20 years in prison, would have done just as much—if not more—than affirmative action or any DEI initiatives.

It isn't a hate crime to refuse admittance of a potential student because their scores are lower than other applicants. I'd imagine that if only test scores and grades were used to admit students in the 1970s and 1980s, we'd see a much different ethnic distribution of students in US Colleges today. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to admit the thumb was on the scale 20 years ago and that thumb impacts applicants filing for admission today. It isn't about discriminate treatment of race, disregarding any care for qualifications.

To the best of my knowledge, affirmative action has led to no disparate professional outcomes in the fields it has been used.

America has been way too soft on racists, coddling them instead of laying down the law: do the right thing or get fucked.

I hate analogies, but I see this as it being illegal for blacks to learn how to swim. And then one day that law is repealed, and we push all the blacks into the pool to thrash about and maybe not drown... but we'll charge any white people that try to actively drown one of them. Then we give the best swimmers in the pool jobs. It is overlooking what is required to become a professional. It isn't as simple as "Sorry, we won't discriminate based on race anymore", when that discrimination directly influences the metrics used for propelling people into the opportunities of professions.

 

[thebeave]

Bring the pain

Yup. I need to rewatch that again. CR is a comedy genius.

 

[Harry Bosch]

For example, if a bank is found to engage in unfair practices, any individual involved in perpetuating racist practices within the corporation would face immediate legal consequences. If it's determined that these issues are systemic and driven by leadership, we would then hold each individual up the chain accountable, potentially leading to arrests at all levels. Fuck em.

The problem here is that it's not as easy as it seems to identify "unfair practices" that cause racist practices. For example, in the old days, banks preferred to only provide mortgages to people buying new homes or homes that were less than 30 years old. The thinking here is that homes older than 30 years didn't have as long as a useful life and thus, would have greater rates of default. Makes sense? Wouldn't you agree? Some banks stopped lending entirely in older neighborhoods (this was known as redlining). Today we understand that these older neighborhoods have larger groupings of blacks than what we find in the newer neighborhoods. Thus, this practice was an example of unintentional bias. But it was still bias that hurt families. However, I would not hold those banks at fault. Once the problem was identified, laws were passed that outlawed redlinning. I would hold bankers today responsible who deliberately violate the law. Would you agree with this?

 

[Gospel]

The problem here is that it's not as easy as it seems to identify "unfair practices" that cause racist practices. For example, in the old days, banks preferred to only provide mortgages to people buying new homes or homes that were less than 30 years old. The thinking here is that homes older than 30 years didn't have as long as a useful life and thus, would have greater rates of default. Makes sense? Wouldn't you agree? Some banks stopped lending entirely in older neighborhoods (this was known as redlining). Today we understand that these older neighborhoods have larger groupings of blacks than what we find in the newer neighborhoods. Thus, this practice was an example of unintentional bias. But it was still bias that hurt families. However, I would not hold those banks at fault. Once the problem was identified, laws were passed that outlawed redlinning. I would hold bankers today responsible who deliberately violate the law. Would you agree with this?

That’s not the case. We can evaluate a company's practices by conducting a thorough analysis of their records. By comparing how customers in similar circumstances were treated, we can determine if discriminatory practices occurred. Older homes aren't exclusively owned by Black individuals, so this bias could affect various demographics. If a pattern shows that both White and Black homeowners of 30-year-old properties were treated equally, then there's no issue. However, if a discrepancy is found, those responsible should face the consequences without exception.

 

[Gospel]

I don't think I answered your question.

 

[Janice Rael]

That's not what Redlining is.

 

[TomC]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

 

[Toni]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

$5700/acre is an extremely good price in the US.

Point taken about population density in the UK.