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]

In other words, it’s too late to hold individuals accountable for gains made from slavery. Even if it weren’t too late, you'd need to consider whether those gains were made while slavery was still legal or after it was abolished. Since there’s no legal remedy for the crime of slavery itself (given that it was once legal), the only remaining option is compensation from the government, which essentially admitted its wrongdoing through constitutional amendments. But I'll be honest—that’s a pipe dream.

 

[Swammerdami]

I just watched Jamie Raskin on YouTube and he annoyed me. Usually I admire his comments but he must have forgotten his smart pill when he made that video. He was addressing the claim from the Stupidists that America is a white Christian nation. First he agreed that the statement was true in a trivial sense since 60% of Americans are Christian and 70% are white.

The way to expose the stupidity of the claim is to announce that, by the same incompetent reasoning, America is a nation of brunettes who don't read books. Instead Raskin smirked that America will not be white much longer; it will be less than 50% white in a few decades. Hey, idiot! The goal right now is to convince racists to vote AGAINST the racist party! Is inciting their fear that whites will soon be outnumbered the way to get them relaxed???

Then he addressed the claim that the U.S.A. is a Christian nation. He started talking about the "founding fathers" -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison etc. This should be better, I thought. He'll say that a large number of the smartest founding fathers had specifically said that they were NOT Christians; that they thought God was an abstraction unrelated to Jesus, if he existed at all. NOPE! Instead it was babble, babble, babble and I X'ed away the tab.

Bathing in joy with the base is good! But when trying to appeal to "Undecided" voters, keep in mind that anyone still "Undecided" has a low IQ, and is probably a bigot crazed by irrational angers. Humor them the way you might humor a grumpy old dog.

 

[Gospel]

Jimmy Higgins has drilled that into my head so deeply that it’s left a lasting impression. As unsettling as it is, that's the stark reality of our political landscape. Idiots can vote & there are a lot of them.

 

[Politesse]

Misrepresenting the truth of important social issues in order to win an election seems like a dubious strategy in the long term. As, I think, the Republicans have been demonstrating over this past decade. They are at this point a minority party in all but practice, precisely because they are selling a version of America that no longer seems accurate or relevant to a (admittedly thin) majority of Americans. Our founders were, to a one, socially Christian, even those with private doubts or nuanced deist theologies. That is a fact. The racial demographics of the nation are shifting away from a clear white majority. This is also a fact. If acceptance of the Democrat ticket requires denying those facts, that weakens the party rather than strengthening it. What will you do if you convince people that it's okay to support the Democratic ticket because the white racial numeric majority is not endangered by the coming demographic shift, and then in four years' time they see a news report that the white majority has indeed been broken just like Trump said it would be? Trump, who if he is not dead will most certainly running for office yet again at that time? Or if you convince them it's okay to vote Democrat because so and so in the 18th century was an atheist, and then they read one of his letters that makes it clear this was not so?

Rather, we should be teaching people not to fear children of mixed race in the first place, building a vision of America as a place where people of multiple racial backgrounds can peacefully co-exist, and where we can honor the cultural heritage of our Christian past as foundational to the nation without conceding any immediate political power to modern day religious leaders. I think undecided voters, who are actually kind of put off by conspiracy theories, to say nothing very far Right or Left positions, would be more open to both arguments than you might suppose.

 

[Elixir]

If Cheato is kept out of the WH this go round, he won’t be on the 2028 ticket; he’ll be dead, in jail or in exile.

 

[Politesse]

If Cheato is kept out of the WH this go round, he won’t be on the 2028 ticket; he’ll be dead, in jail or in exile.

I've learned never to say "There's no way that Trump will _______". He is not a reasonable man, and he listens to nothing that people tell him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Source? From what I see, African American attendance and graduation dropped. Latino went up though.

NPR Article on the results of the ban.

The ban first took effect with the incoming class of '98. Subsequently, diversity plummeted at UC's most competitive campuses. That year, enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%, according to a 2020 study by Bleemer. As a result of the ban, Bleemer found that Black and Latino students who might have gotten into those two top schools enrolled at less competitive campuses.

...

Faced with plummeting minority enrollment, admissions offices began a years-long effort to figure out ways to get their numbers back up.

Admissions offices pivoted to a more holistic approach, looking beyond grades and test scores. Starting in the early 2000s, the UC system implemented a couple of initiatives to increase diversity: The top-performing students graduating most high schools in the state were guaranteed admission to most of the eight UC undergraduate campuses. It also introduced a comprehensive review process to "evaluate students' academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them" — using an array of criteria including a student's special skills and achievements, special circumstances and location of high school.

...

Still, the California schools are unable to meet their diversity goals systemwide. Chang says his school is not where it wants to be. It still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates — a problem it didn't have before the affirmative action ban.

You're not rebutting my point.

Minority students at those two colleges dropped considerably. That's not what I was talking about! Rather, I'm talking about the total across the whole college system. As your source says, they enroll at less competitive campuses--but it doesn't mention the fact that they were more likely to graduate rather than drop out/flunk out. And I consider it a win when someone gets their degree from a 2nd tier university rather than fails to get one from a 1st tier university.

And I'd love to see that source of yours.

Your source is describing a variety of means of discriminating in favor of black students. They wouldn't be doing that if merit worked. Do you not see how your source is dripping with racism? Just because the victims are Asian and white doesn't make it not racism and not wrong.

I looked at the charts. They indicated substantial racial drop for African Americans. I could not find data that backed your claim.

 

[Elixir]

If Cheato is kept out of the WH this go round, he won’t be on the 2028 ticket; he’ll be dead, in jail or in exile.

I've learned never to say "There's no way that Trump will _______". He is not a reasonable man, and he listens to nothing that people tell him.

His survival instinct is still functioning, and he will be on the track to jail if he isn’t President.
He may very well WISH he was on the ticket, but those making that decision will be having none of it by 2028. 8-10 years of uninterrupted losing will have taken its toll.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My, my, I wonder if people realize that Black folks who purchased their homes for cash actually existed. And why did they do that? Maybe because loans weren’t an option, so they had to save up and buy outright. That's plausible, because, a lot of those old homes didn’t have mortgages, from what I’ve learned. Could it be because the banking system did a good job of keeping certain people out of the home buying market? Leaving only those who were able to save and not need a loan to purchase a house? Curious that.

I've got to imagine that references carried heavier weight back in the day.

 

[Politesse]

If Cheato is kept out of the WH this go round, he won’t be on the 2028 ticket; he’ll be dead, in jail or in exile.

I've learned never to say "There's no way that Trump will _______". He is not a reasonable man, and he listens to nothing that people tell him.

His survival instinct is still functioning, and he will be on the track to jail if he isn’t President.
He may very well WISH he was on the ticket, but those making that decision will be having none of it by 2028. 8-10 years of uninterrupted losing will have taken its toll.

It has already taken its toll, he's a drooling mess. Hasn't stopped him yet. The party leadership despises him. Hasn't stopped him yet. Nor does being in prison does not prevent a candidate from running for president. If there were any doubt on that point, his handpicked Court would resolve that doubt handily. And Trump does not believe that he has seen 8-10 years of uninterrupted failure. Right now, as we type, he believes that he is the legally elected president of the United States of America, unfairly prevented from taking office by an illegal cabal.

 

[Gospel]

I believe Affirmative Action and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts should be abolished, and instead, racism should be criminalized—not just in cases of violent crimes, but in any acts of racism that violate someone's rights or deny them opportunities that others in similar circumstances have access to. All hate crimes should be met with serious consequences, including incarceration, rather than the current approach of coddling these individuals with Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives. Those who engage in racism would soon regret their actions and reminisce about the "good old days" of Affirmative Action and DEI, wishing for a time when America was more accommodating to their racist views, and would listen to them bitch and moan about helping black people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other words, it’s too late to hold individuals accountable for gains made from slavery. Even if it weren’t too late, you'd need to consider whether those gains were made while slavery was still legal or after it was abolished. Since there’s no legal remedy for the crime of slavery itself (given that it was once legal), the only remaining option is compensation from the government, which essentially admitted its wrongdoing through constitutional amendments. But I'll be honest—that’s a pipe dream.

Right now, I'd settle for just getting the lead out of the paint.

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. Harris has slaveowner ancestors. So what? Everyone has slaveowner ancestors. Harris has slave ancestors. So what? Everyone has slave ancestors. People have been enslaving one another for millennia and there's no more chance of finding someone to breed with who has no slaves or slaveowners in his or her ancestry than someone who isn't descended from a thief. Heck, half the people in the world are probably descended just from one or another of the slave-girls Genghis Khan owned and impregnated. So what? Most people were slaves in a lot of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recently than that in Eastern Europe. Enslaving Slavs was so common our languages named the institution after them. So what? Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

Exactly. Several generations back family trees tend to grow very wide and have both good and bad sorts in them.

I was puzzled about how my ancestral DNA came to be until someone pointed out that it might have come from a sailor. Yeah, makes perfect sense and means that most likely there's a whore 8 generations back. Means nothing.

Oh look, it's two white folks having an imaginary conversation, both responding to something that was never actually said. They’re right that ancestry doesn’t matter for many things—like being a candidate for the presidency. But I did mention it has cultural significance. I wonder if either of you want to stop debating what's imagined and address what I’m actually saying. But hey, I’m used to this from both of you, so it is what it is. Enjoy.

I find slavery to be a red herring. Slavery was an issue, but slavery was over 150 years ago. And its impact on blacks in America doesn't really exist in any notable way.

What does exist is the generations of Jim Crow in the South and Jim Crah in the North that specifically targeted African Americans in a way to make them a permanent lower caste in America. The were robbed, stolen from, beaten, murdered, kept from community services for generations. It wasn't until 70 years ago that things began to adapt. That is just 3 generations. And it wasn't a clean transition 3 generations ago. No. There were a couple more decades of murders as segregation was finally being ended, in spite of the Southern battle flag adoption and erection of statues of southern tyrannts.

Maybe two generations of African Americans outside the era of Segregation? Two generations isn't a long time to get things on an even footing. And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

The concentration of slavery is sometimes a distraction (intentional?) from the substantial injustices perpetrated so much more recently, injustices served onto African Americans that are very much alive today.

 

[Elixir]

Right now, as we type, he believes that he is the legally elected president of the United States of America, unfairly prevented from taking office by an illegal cabal.

Nope. He believes he has to pretend to believe his own BS. He has admitted he lost, before the extent of the trouble he was in became apparent.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I believe Affirmative Action and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts should be abolished, and instead, racism should be criminalized—not just in cases of violent crimes, but in any acts of racism that violate someone's rights or deny them opportunities that others in similar circumstances have access to. All hate crimes should be met with serious consequences, including incarceration, rather than the current approach of coddling these individuals with Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives. Those who engage in racism would soon regret their actions and reminisce about the "good old days" of Affirmative Action and DEI, wishing for a time when America was more accommodating to their racist views, and would listen to them bitch and moan about helping black people.

I agree with you. The goal should be a color blind society. It’s such a faulty way to judge someone. I’m an Indian. My wife is white. We have two daughters from China. One from Latin America. How should they be judged? Judge them to how they look? Their birth mom? Their family? Their skin color?

 

[TomC]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I believe Affirmative Action and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts should be abolished, and instead, racism should be criminalized—not just in cases of violent crimes, but in any acts of racism that violate someone's rights or deny them opportunities that others in similar circumstances have access to. All hate crimes should be met with serious consequences, including incarceration, rather than the current approach of coddling these individuals with Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives. Those who engage in racism would soon regret their actions and reminisce about the "good old days" of Affirmative Action and DEI, wishing for a time when America was more accommodating to their racist views, and would listen to them bitch and moan about helping black people.

I agree with you. The goal should be a color blind society. It’s such a faulty way to judge someone. I’m an Indian. My wife is white. We have two daughters from China. One from Latin America. How should they be judged? Judge them to how they look? Their birth mom? Their family? Their skin color?

Policies designed to address racism and inequality should not unfairly impact those who aren't responsible for the problem. I believe these measures should target and negatively affect only those who engage in racist behavior or contribute to creating an unequal environment. I'm tired of the tiptoeing around the issue America does relying on solutions like Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives. All to just keep these people with outdated attitudes in check. If people refuse to adapt, they should face real consequences, like time in the penitentiary, to ensure a fair and just society. Too many lives were lost before, during, and after the civil rights movement for us to tolerate this nonsense any longer. Enough is enough. These attitudes are making life harder for everyone, regardless of race—whether white, Black, Asian, or anyone else.

Just throw them in jail already.

 

[Swammerdami]

Misrepresenting the truth of important social issues in order to win an election seems like a dubious strategy in the long term.

"Long term"?? We don't have a long term remaining. Hitler's minority Nazis took power with 33%, and never needed to win another legitimate election. It took a World War to knock them out. The Republicans are a minority party, already acting to take absolute power. Politesse, are you one of those who think pessimists like myself are Chicken Little saying "the sky is falling"? My optimistic heart hopes you're right, but my rational brain tells me the situation is far more desperate than you seem to understand.

... Our founders were, to a one, socially Christian, even those with private doubts or nuanced deist theologies.

I should have phrased my comment differently, but your comments err in the opposite direction. Most of the smartest Founding Fathers were Unitarians or Deists, and several did not work to keep that "heresy" secret. All were strong advocates of the Separation of Church and State, which is what America's fascists are now pushing against. Here are a few quotes:

George Washington​

Washington most often referred to divinity in the deist sense of a Creator God. He was known to have refused to participate in communion, which may indicate his deist rejection of ceremonial ritual. In his private correspondence, Washington never mentioned the name of Jesus Christ. ... his writings indicate that he held the deist notion that God is hidden from humanity.

John Adams​

John Adams was raised as a Congregationalist, and although he never officially left that church, he self-identified as a Unitarian while he was President. In his private correspondence, Adams rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity, notions he described as ''incomprehensible.''

Thomas Paine​

Paine was clearly a deist. He wrote a pamphlet entitled Of the Religion of Deism Compared With the Christian Religion, outlining every tenet of deism, from its rejection of the supernatural, the divinity of Jesus Christ, to the perfidy of the clergy.

Paine was a thoroughgoing creature of The Enlightenment. His book The Age of Reason rejected the authority of the Bible, the Church, and the King.

Benjamin Franklin​

Benjamin Franklin was a “deist.” We know so because he tells us in his celebrated Autobiography.

Thomas Jefferson​

In his letters Thomas Jefferson described himself as being an "Epicurean", a "19th century materialist", a "Unitarian by myself" and "a sect by myself." He carried on a long and successful campaign against state financial support of churches in Virginia. Jefferson also coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." During his 1800 campaign for the presidency, Jefferson had to contend with critics who argued that he was unfit to hold office because of his "unorthodox" religious beliefs. In later years, Jefferson refused to serve as a godparent for infants being baptized, because he did not believe in the dogma of the Trinity. Despite testimony of Jefferson's church attendance, there is no evidence that he was ever confirmed or was a communicant.

Rather, we should be teaching people not to fear children of mixed race in the first place, building a vision of America as a place where people of multiple racial backgrounds can peacefully co-exist, ...

Children can be taught. Today's "Undecided" voter is, to a one, at best a semi-literate moron comfortable with his/her life-long bigotries.

 

[Swammerdami]

It wasn't until 70 years ago that things began to adapt. That is just 3 generations. And it wasn't a clean transition 3 generations ago. No. There were a couple more decades of murders as segregation was finally being ended, in spite of the Southern battle flag adoption and erection of statues of southern tyrannts.

Maybe two generations of African Americans outside the era of Segregation? Two generations isn't a long time to get things on an even footing. And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

The concentration of slavery is sometimes a distraction (intentional?) from the substantial injustices perpetrated so much more recently, injustices served onto African Americans that are very much alive today.

I liked your entire post, Jimmy, but snipped all but this bit. Murders of blacks by police and de facto segregation are still going on.

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Oh? Governor Rick Snyder was charged with criminal corruption for his role in saving a few dollars and allowing the tap water of Flint Michigan to poison tens of thousands of Flint's children via illegal lead levels. Are you sure he'd have still done this if Flint were not majority-black?


Just now, the 'Net presented me with a story of a young woman sentenced to 11 years for killing the man who repeatedly raped her when she was 16, and then rented her out to other men. She is black, and he was white. Raise your hand if an 11 years imprisonment would have been the outcome were the races reversed.

 

[Politesse]

"Long term"?? We don't have a long term remaining. Hitler's minority Nazis took power with 33%, and never needed to win another legitimate election. It took a World War to knock them out. The Republicans are a minority party, already acting to take absolute power. Politesse, are you one of those who think pessimists like myself are Chicken Little saying "the sky is falling"? My optimistic heart hopes you're right, but my rational brain tells me the situation is far more desperate than you seem to understand.

I was feeling more or hopeless about Biden as a candidate. Harris has better chances. The coup may go forward even if she wins, especially if (as seems likely at present) it is by a thin margin. But right or wrong, panic is not a state of mind conducive to good decision-making. What good will it do us to save the country in November only to lose it two or four years later? Both short and long term implications of political action should always be considered. Indeed, someone with a long term plan is not only more effective, but also generally more popular, than someone who is only reacting to the latest news.

Today's "Undecided" voter is, to a one, at best a semi-literate moron comfortable with his/her life-long bigotries.

This assessment is not, as near as I can tell, accurate to what we know or understand about late deciding voters in the US.

 

[Swammerdami]

What good will it do us to save the country in November only to lose it two or four years later? Both short and long term implications of political action should always be considered. Indeed, someone with a long term plan is not only more effective, but also generally more popular, than someone who is only reacting to the latest news.

I thought I was the pessimist, but it appears you are even more pessimistic than I!

I mentioned Hitler for a reason. He won ONE (1) election (and with only 33% of the vote) and thereafter could be removed only after the loss of many millions of lives.

Similarly, the American Fascists need win the White House only once^* and our Democracy is finished.

I am an OPTIMIST. It is my firm hope that if Harris-Walz win, America will start coming to its senses. We may get a surge of Blue Party strength. You, on the other hand, seem to PESSIMISTICALLY feel the same threat will repeat in 4 years, 8 years, etc. A single success by the hard-core fascists and this Democracy will become just a memory.

* - Yes, I did notice that Trump was President for 4 years already. But all were shocked by that, and Fascist Evil didn't have time to put its pants on. Trump hired a few competent people who were able to circumvent him. In a 2nd Trump President the fascists will be far better prepared. We can see that already.