Racial Tension in the U.S.

[-Akronite-]

I don't doubt that the schools try, but it's an open secret that they don't provide as good an education as schools in wealthier districts. I think it's reasonable to believe that they could improve the quality of their education with more money.

It's more than money, as most would agree simply throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. The unenforced segregation of our skills is a huge issue as well. And when segregation legally ended, there wasn't a desegregation of teachers to go along with the students and basically a generation of black teachers were fired. So many cities and towns are still basically separated by race even though it isn't the law of the land. Higher equity in resources would probably help though.

 

[Nathan S]

Site -------------- US Web Traffic Rank

DailyStormer ---- 2,423

RCF --------------- 60,260 (for reference)

Torchantifa.org --- 230,386


Look out, antifa and the "alt-left" is totally going mainstream!

(if you know of a higher traffic antifa hub feel free to point it out; I did a little searching and couldn't find anything)

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is a misunderstanding. I was not accusing you of ignoring my request. I was pointing out that I requested unbiased sources at the very start of this discussion, and that request was ignored (but not by you).

Then you probably shouldn't have said that in a post in which you were quoting and replying to me.....

I don't doubt that the schools try, but it's an open secret that they don't provide as good an education as schools in wealthier districts.

I've actually been in/taught in some of those schools, and in some schools in wealthier districts. The teachers seem just as dedicated, if a bit worn down. And many of them actually spend even more money. The biggest difference is 1) parental involvement/caring (or lack thereof) and 2) how much the students themselves care, which is largely a function of 1). There are unquestionably other factors, but that one is the one that is always going to dominate. 1) and 2) can usually overcome the other factors if strong enough, and the lack of 1) and 2) can't be overcome by those other factors.

I would offer this -- things like lowering the rate of teen pregnancy, getting students (and perhaps parents) to care more about school, improving discipline, absolutely require some increased sense of personal responsibility/accountability. That is at least a major part of what is needed. The sense that "my future is up to me."

Fundamentally, I don't believe that people of different races are any different. People are people, and they will tend to respond to certain incentives and concepts in generally the same way. When you raise generations to believe that the primary problem with their lives is white people, or white privilege, or white bias, you are giving them an excuse to which most people would latch onto as a mental excuse preferable to the undeniably hard work/self-examination it would take for self-improvement.

tl;dr: if you teach people that their lot in life is due to the actions of other people rather than themselves, you are crippling the sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility necessary to improve their lot in life. At that point, only the exceptional few will succeed. I don't believe that is a message that is politically acceptable, so it's not one that is going to be as effectively delivered as it needs to be.

 

[The Oi]

Just out of curiosity...

What do you guys who lean left think of ANTIFA? Just generally.

 

[AZ_]

So I suppose violence against them is perfectly fine too, eh?

You really need to stop with this strawman. I feel like you're just embarassing yourself at this point with how you're digging your heels in on a take nobody is making.

Speaking of which....I was looking at images from the Boston rally, and saw a sign that said "White Silence is Violence." I figured that was one of the nuttiest things I'd ever heard. How can silence be violence? So I later tried googling the phrase to post the sign as a joke. But lo and behold, I found that "White Silence is Violence" is actually a "thing" all over the place. Saw an article in Ebony magazine, and a bunch of stuff elsewhere.

I saw that sign too, 99 percent sure it was on a puppy that I posted earlier in this thread.

Looked pretty dangerous, though.

Essentially, the point is to say something instead of doing nothing.

The implications of that belief are pretty staggering. Most of us would agree that violence in response to violence is often justified. But if someone's inaction -- the simple failure to parrot the desired slogans at the appropriate people - is considered violence, then seemingly random acts of violence against ordinary people and property can be justified. Because we're not out there with them marching, we are ourselves committing violence, and therefore are legitimate targets for actual violence.

Actually it speaks to just being complicit against those who are being violent towards minorities, Jews, etc.

I know that you've consistently overlooked/denied the violence that occurred in Charlottesville pre-Antifa's arrival, but it's really just a catchy way of saying that people should not be sitting silently as this stuff happens.

And of course, the cops who are out there just trying to protect property and ordinary citizens -- even when there aren't even counter-protestors present -- are valid targets because they are protecting those who are committing "violence". Which at least partially explains why these leftists tend to riot even when there isn't even anyone out there on the other side. Because the entire system is "violent", and therefore a legitimate target.

Some, violent, leftists.

Who aren't really being supported or emboldened by a faction of government, as white supremacists have been under this current leadership.

 

[Nathan S]

Then you probably shouldn't have said that in a post in which you were quoting and replying to me.....



I've actually been in/taught in some of those schools, and in some schools in wealthier districts. The teachers seem just as dedicated, if a bit worn down. And many of them actually spend even more money. The biggest difference is 1) parental involvement/caring (or lack thereof) and 2) how much the students themselves care, which is largely a function of 1). There are unquestionably other factors, but that one is the one that is always going to dominate.

I would offer this -- things like lowering the rate of teen pregnancy, getting students (and perhaps parents) to care more about school, improving discipline, absolutely require some increased sense of personal responsibility/accountability. That is at least a major part of what is needed. The sense that "my future is up to me."

Fundamentally, I don't believe that people of different races are any different. People are people, and they will tend to respond to certain incentives and concepts in generally the same way. When you raise generations to believe that the primary problem with their lives is white people, or white privilege, or white bias, you are giving them an excuse to which most people would latch onto as a mental excuse preferable to the undeniably hard work/self-examination it would take for self-improvement.

tl;dr: if you teach people that their lot in life is due to the actions of other people rather than themselves, you are crippling the sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility necessary to improve their lot in life. At that point, only the exceptional few will succeed. I don't belief that is a message that is politically acceptable, so it's not one that is going to be as effectively delivered as it needs to be.

I mostly agree with what you're saying here. I think we shouldn't ignore the fact that racism, both overt and in the form of implicit bias, still exist in this country. But it should be made clear that the presence of racism doesn't entitle anyone to anything beyond an fair chance to succeed.

That said, when poor parents (for whatever reason) can't, on average, contribute as much to the development of their children, I think it's a good idea for schools and the government in general to fill that void and ensure that the children have a fair chance to succeed. That may require more money, but I think it would be money well spent.

 

[Nathan S]

Just out of curiosity...

What do you guys who lean left think of ANTIFA? Just generally.

A great way to commit crime and do awful things while somehow also claiming the moral high ground over nonviolent liberals?

I mean, I guess I give them one single solitary brownie point for being against Nazis. But generally if the only thing I agree with someone on is that we're both against Nazis, we're not going to get along.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You really need to stop with this strawman. I feel like you're just embarassing yourself at this point with how you're digging your heels in on a take nobody is making.

To the contrary, most acts of violence by leftists rioting when there aren't any Nazis around, whether property destruction or attacks on the person, validate my point. It is happening, whether you want to believe that or not. Also, just for future references, telling other people that their argument is embarrassing doesn't actually refute anything.

I saw that sign too, 99 percent sure it was on a puppy that I posted earlier in this thread.

Oh -- are these all just puppies too?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyAPU5xZRcQAswlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZXVidmp0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM5MTlfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=white silence is violence&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t

And here's the article I saw --

View: http://twitter.com/sangichandra/status/898925595844898816

Some, violent, leftists. Who aren't really being supported or emboldened by a faction of government,

To the contrary, I think that's exactly what was happening last summer, and is still happening in a lot of places -- local Democrat governments/universities deliberately turn a blind eye to violence committed by leftist radicals against conservatives, because they don't want those conservatives in their cities/campuses at all. That massive disturbance in Chicago, cancellation of a speech by a Presidential candidate, and only four arrests -- all of which were for assaults on police officers, none for assaults on those trying to attend.

And the President blamed Trump.

 

[DJTJ]

Just out of curiosity...

What do you guys who lean left think of ANTIFA? Just generally.

Only time I've ever been okay with their violence against protestors was in Charolletsville.

Think they're unecessary, don't think they really care for what their message is (like in Germany, where it's great) and think they just like to be violent because they know they probably won't get in trouble.

That being said? Find it comical when people try to equate them with neo-Nazis, white supremacists/nationalists.

 

[-Akronite-]

Oh -- are these all just puppies too?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyAPU5xZRcQAswlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZXVidmp0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM5MTlfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=white silence is violence&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t

And here's the article I saw --

View: http://twitter.com/sangichandra/status/898925595844898816

Is anything you just posted supposed to be threatening? Like those two women standing around a group of people being peaceful? And is there an article I'm missing or is that just a Tweet w/ a video? Curious about what the source of your objection is.

And the President blamed Trump.

Poor innocent Trump.

 

[Nathan S]

If Antifa was exclusively a punch-a-Nazi club with no other ideology I would like them a lot more

 

[pr26]

Just out of curiosity...

What do you guys who lean left think of ANTIFA? Just generally.

Quick general answer since I don't have much time. For the most part, I'm not a huge fan and don't think they are very effective. Them being a meat-shield between literal Nazis and peaceful protesters was one of the few useful things they've done, which coincidentally is what is bringing them into the lime light in main stream media.

To me, Antifa is the same element of anarchist violence that has always been an issue for those on the left trying to organize. You set up any protest, peaceful or not, and there's always a faction of folks who are their for their own agenda. You have no idea how many protests I organized in bigger cities where I'd have to reach out to these groups inan effort to control them/keep them away. Antifa is basically a section of these people with an ominous name and a few issues under their belt. Hell, I also have some moral issues with capitalism, and agree with SOME of their thoughts, but anyone educated in government and has half a brain could tell you that destroying property and starting fights does zilch for your long term goals, especially in the days of a 24 hour news cycle.

I'll try to post more when I have time, but tldr, same shit, new brand. Lack of strong leadership has always hurt groups who trend further left.

 

[David.]

Think Tanks are little more than political agendas dressed up as science. Having worked at one I can tell you funding heavily influences outcomes.

You guys can trade Think Tank studies to little avail.

Peer reviewed shit in respected Journals are about as close as one can get to "good" science in the soft sciences. And even then...

Right, and even then.

You've just placed the level of what evidence anyone could ever present as literally impossible to meet should you choose to consider the source rather than the study.

Which is why you don't do that. It's ad hominem and poisoning the well. A bad source that has never reported anything correctly can possibly do something correct and vice versa. To throw out data because of the source is illogical. You address the data not the source. We can't continue these discussions if we don't agree on that.

Splc is biased. Does that mean I throw out every conclusion they've ever drawn?

 

[Nathan S]

Right, and even then.

You've just placed the level of what evidence anyone could ever present as literally impossible to meet should you choose to consider the source rather than the study.

Which is why you don't do that. It's ad hominem and poisoning the well. A bad source that has never reported anything correctly can possibly do something correct and vice versa. To throw out data because of the source is illogical. You address the data not the source. We can't continue these discussions if we don't agree on that.

Splc is biased. Does that mean I throw out every conclusion they've ever drawn?

It's not that the data should be thrown out. It's that the website takes the data and then goes through 20 pages of mental gymnastics to argue that the data shows giving money to the poor is destroying the moral fabric of our country (doublethink if I've ever seen it).

 

[David.]

It's not that the data should be thrown out. It's that the website takes the data and then goes through 20 pages of mental gymnastics to argue that the data shows giving money to the poor is destroying the moral fabric of our country (doublethink if I've ever seen it).

Let's start here, because it's important. So in the future, you will not dismiss a report because of the source?

We'll move here after. What you've posted isn't a refutation, it's an opinion that you haven't supported by (either of) 1. Any presented data or even 2. A reasonable, non numerical rebuttal. That is not an argument. Saying I don't like a study and don't believe the conclusion is not a rebuttal.