(09-29-2016, 05:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes while you ignore the number of times there is interactions between PO's and blacks on a daily basis.
See I think there is a difference between saying I want to look at all the times something went "wrong" and trying to learn from them and you saying I ignore all the times things went "right".
In my job we might have one product go bad in a week or in a month. We have to find out why. We don't spend a lot of time looking into why the other 99% went through correctly.
Focusing on the bad and seeing if there is anyway to learn from those time to limit them even MORE is not a bad thing in my book.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-29-2016, 03:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They inherited an economy that was built by the British, using British methods (slavery). If they had gotten rid of slavery from Day 1, their economy would have collapsed instantly, the brand new country would have fallen into ruin, and America would either...
1. Look like the Middle East today, with no government worth mentioning. (Doesn't Syria look lovely this time of year?)
or
2. Be under British rule again after they walked right in without a fight because the government couldn't pay or equip their soldiers, and then we'd have slavery for even longer and all the things that America invented or introduced technology or ideologically might not have ever happened.
Shitty that it lasted as long as it did? Most certainly. Horrible? Yup.
But lets not forget that as soon as the fledgling country was no longer in danger of instantly collapsing (they fought well over a dozen and a half wars in the 80 years between winning the Revolution and the Civil War) the US killed up to 750,000 of it's own (not even counting wounded) to end slavery (though there were other issues in the Civil War as well).
If you know a way to entirely rebuild an economy overnight after it had been a certain way for 150 years, while also fighting tons of wars against a lot of different countries that don't want you to exist, I would love to know it.
Yea, the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery.
Also, they didn't have to outright abolish it, but they could have began to decrease it. Instead, the Constitution was written to protect slavery. The South was rewarded with extra representation for slaves, despite them not being citizens, at the cost of slightly higher taxes. Three states forced the other 10 to allow slave trade for another 20 years. They added into the Constitution that runaway slaves had to be returned.
These few elites were given so much power that, before Lincoln, 10 of the 15 Presidents were slaveholders. None of the 5 who were not got reelected. Those slave holding Presidents sat in office for 50 of the 72 years prior to Lincoln's inauguration.
Not only did we not allow for slavery to slowly be curbed, we protected it and gave slave owning states more power.
(09-29-2016, 05:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: See I think there is a difference between saying I want to look at all the times something went "wrong" and trying to learn from them and you saying I ignore all the times things went "right".
In my job we might have one product go bad in a week or in a month. We have to find out why. We don't spend a lot of time looking into why the other 99% went through correctly.
Focusing on the bad and seeing if there is anyway to learn from those time to limit them even MORE is not a bad thing in my book.
Finding out what went wrong?
And I would bet that on the ones that went wrong you will find that most if not all didn't follow the orders of the cop.
(09-29-2016, 07:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Finding out what went wrong?
And I would bet that on the ones that went wrong you will find that most if not all didn't follow the orders of the cop.
As long as there are any questions there is a chance to learn.
I know that bothers people who think that they know it all. But no one does.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-29-2016, 04:14 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There are plenty of white kids that are given nothing. Nothing. No money, terrible schools, terrible parenting, terrible health care. And there's plenty of blacks that enjoy immense privileges. Born into wealth, best schools, best healthcare, every resource imaginable. Even if the numbers are disproportion there's a lot that goes into that. Regardless, the idea of white privilege for all is just not true. Not now, not in this time.
Well.... I'm not 100% white, but most would guess so.
But..... I started with next to nothing.
I received a $400 car, for graduation.
That was it.
I had worked since I was 12, bought a beater car, and paid my own insurance.
(09-29-2016, 09:57 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well.... I'm not 100% white, but most would guess so.
But..... I started with next to nothing.
I received a $400 car, for graduation.
That was it.
I had worked since I was 12, bought a beater car, and paid my own insurance.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-29-2016, 09:57 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well.... I'm not 100% white, but most would guess so.
But..... I started with next to nothing.
I received a $400 car, for graduation.
That was it.
I had worked since I was 12, bought a beater car, and paid my own insurance.
Yeah but in 1922, that was a pretty nice car.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(09-29-2016, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does. Here is your historical factual proof.
Your opinion is completely meaningless when I post historical factual truth.
Two separate incidents of racism from 20+ years ago does not equal the "factual truth" of white privilege. And that's assuming the "facts" you have posted are even true and not made up. Because I'm too lazy to research it, I will just accept them as true for the time being.
The very fact that "white privilege" does not apply to all whites (as you have previously admitted to) proves the very fact that there is no such thing as white privilege.
(09-29-2016, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you seriously trying to argue that there is a precedent of police always arresting the WHITE GUY
when he is innocent and letting the black criminal go?
Really?
Nope. Try again. Hint: try reading the words I use literally.
Ah hell, I'm not going to let you twist things. Here let me help you: remember, in this scenario, I'm a white guy in a predominantly black neighborhood being rude, racist and verbally assaulting blacks. So what I'm saying is that according to your "white privilege", I'd be let go and they would arrest all the blacks I was assaulting and I'm saying that's not true.
(09-29-2016, 02:48 PM)Millhouse Wrote: It can be real for some white people in some scenarios. But it certainly isnt like it used to be like in the 1940s and 50s for example.
If you're saying there USED to be white privilege in this country, I'd say, "Well, yeah, no duh!"
But to say it exists now is not only wrong, but it's hurtful to blacks and minorities today. You're basically telling them they can't accomplish anything so why bother?
(09-29-2016, 04:14 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I find this to be a terrible example when used to try convince me that white privilege exists for all whites in 2016.
You've given an example of some "white people", who are probably all dead by now, from 30 years ago, who had a racist club selection practices.
This does nothing to convince me that for all whites there is an inherit privilege just for simply being white in 2016. Nothing. There is no built economic advantage for all whites just for being white. There is no built in educational advantage for all whites either. Social advantage, that maybe can be discussed. But I don't think you can ever apply it to everyone, in any case.
You simply can't talk in absolutes. All whites benefiting from the color of thire skin is incorrect as saying that all blacks have been hindered by theirs. Some have, some haven't. Some. There's a big difference.
There are plenty of white kids that are given nothing. Nothing. No money, terrible schools, terrible parenting, terrible health care. And there's plenty of blacks that enjoy immense privileges. Born into wealth, best schools, best healthcare, every resource imaginable. Even if the numbers are disproportion there's a lot that goes into that. Regardless, the idea of white privilege for all is just not true. Not now, not in this time.
There are more poor white people than poor black people. (And, yes, there are more rich white people than rich black people).
(09-29-2016, 05:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: See I think there is a difference between saying I want to look at all the times something went "wrong" and trying to learn from them and you saying I ignore all the times things went "right".
Which is all well and good and I'm fine with this, but SOME people (not going to accuse you of this, but ... ) only want to look at one side. Even if a shooting is unjustified, if the shootee did things wrong, we should point that out and work towards erradicating that. I mean, how easy would it be to say a shooting was unjustified, if the victim was nothing but polite and respectful and fully followed orders?
(09-30-2016, 01:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Which is all well and good and I'm fine with this, but SOME people (not going to accuse you of this, but ... ) only want to look at one side. Even if a shooting is unjustified, if the shootee did things wrong, we should point that out and work towards erradicating that. I mean, how easy would it be to say a shooting was unjustified, if the victim was nothing but polite and respectful and fully followed orders?
That is an excellent question. I guess we'll have to see.
As to the first part: Someone has to start a conversation. Sometimes they will be wrong, sometimes the conversation is good anyway.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-29-2016, 05:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery.
Also, they didn't have to outright abolish it, but they could have began to decrease it. Instead, the Constitution was written to protect slavery. The South was rewarded with extra representation for slaves, despite them not being citizens, at the cost of slightly higher taxes. Three states forced the other 10 to allow slave trade for another 20 years. They added into the Constitution that runaway slaves had to be returned.
These few elites were given so much power that, before Lincoln, 10 of the 15 Presidents were slaveholders. None of the 5 who were not got reelected. Those slave holding Presidents sat in office for 50 of the 72 years prior to Lincoln's inauguration.
Not only did we not allow for slavery to slowly be curbed, we protected it and gave slave owning states more power.
The Civil War is always a revisionists wet dream. The slave states seceded to protect the institution of slavery. Period. The war was fought to bring the slave states back into the union, not to end slavery. Yet both sides like to revise the whole fiasco to suit their viewpoint.
The Constitution had the fugitive slave clause in the beginning. Subsequent statutory laws were passed to tighten down on free states seeking to undermine the Constitution on that regard. I get what you're saying on this part, I'm just getting into technicalities.
As to the bold, I don't know if you are giving the framers enough credit. The compromises that went into the Constitution gave the free states an edge, albeit a slight one. The problem was with how the country grew afterwards from there.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(09-30-2016, 02:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Civil War is always a revisionists wet dream. The slave states seceded to protect the institution of slavery. Period. The war was fought to bring the slave states back into the union, not to end slavery. Yet both sides like to revise the whole fiasco to suit their viewpoint.
The Constitution had the fugitive slave clause in the beginning. Subsequent statutory laws were passed to tighten down on free states seeking to undermine the Constitution on that regard. I get what you're saying on this part, I'm just getting into technicalities.
As to the bold, I don't know if you are giving the framers enough credit. The compromises that went into the Constitution gave the free states an edge, albeit a slight one. The problem was with how the country grew afterwards from there.
What would you argue is the edge? Because looking at population estimates before and after 3/5th slave representation, 3 of the top 5 states population wise before that compromise are Free. 3 of 5 after are slave states. An extra 312,000 in population in an area that had 1,078,000 to the North's 1,490,000.
(09-30-2016, 03:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What would you argue is the edge? Because looking at population estimates before and after 3/5th slave representation, 3 of the top 5 states population wise before that compromise are Free. 3 of 5 after are slave states. An extra 312,000 in population in an area that had 1,078,000 to the North's 1,490,000.
Hmm, I'll have to look at the numbers again. There was something I had read not to long ago that had the numbers and implied that 3/5ths guaranteed a slight edge to the free states in the House. I'll have to see if I can dig it up again. Of course, what you say here really doesn't dispute that because once you break it down state by state what I am stating could very well remain to be true. I'd just like to see if I can find the information again.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
) only want to look at one side. Even if a shooting is unjustified, if the shootee did things wrong, we should point that out and work towards erradicating that. I mean, how easy would it be to say a shooting was unjustified, if the victim was nothing but polite and respectful and fully followed orders?
