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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Research showing a social issue isn't an issue doesn't get done much. And when it is done it's usually by outsiders. This is a case where the absence of data should not be used as a suggestion there is no data.

Furthermore, we have what we saw in California. Remove AA and more blacks got degrees because they were more likely to graduate if they weren't in over their head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Yup. It's a market where the price is pretty much fixed by competition. Getting an advantage on your competitor is from doing a better job of selecting customers. And exactly how they do that will be considered business secrets.

An older house means more headaches and more chance of something seriously wrong. I don't know what it cost to fix but I know my parent's house turned out to have some serious hidden issues. I wouldn't blame a bank one bit for requiring a lower loan to value on such houses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It was considered redlining locally when banks were "discriminating" against blacks. Strangely, though, only on low-down mortgages in "black" areas (or was it areas with no expected appreciation???) The simplest option is that they don't want to write loans that will be underwater a few years down the road. Anything else you have explain why they discriminated only in that situation.

And what about what's been brought up in the medical school split? There's widespread discrimination against white males. Prosecute everyone involved???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

When they wouldn't show such houses it's definitely wrong.

But you are right that people tend to like to live near people like them. Realtors know this and will tend to show houses in neighborhoods like the people because they know that's more likely to get a sale. It's not a racial decision for them, it's a how-likely-is-the-customer-to-buy decision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

 

[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.

Doesn't change the fact that rural land doesn't tend to turn much of a profit.

Omg Loren. For people who value living in a rural setting, not to mention the people who earn their living and feed your face off of rural land, what you think of the profit margins means nothing. They are happy you don’t think it’s valuable because that means they can continue to lead a life they value.