Pro-Life School Walkout

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Uhhhhhhh. We're obviously in the Twilight Zone here so I'm just gonna take a lap.

[DixonHur 11305]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is that what you're very-real-and-not-fake-at-all black friends told you?

I know, right, who has black friends...they must be make believe. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I know, right, who has black friends...they must be make believe. 

I believe you, dude, you have multiple super rich black friends who have told you "that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them."

Absolutely. Mhmm. Yes.

Definitely.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Most of the people who read these threads can read.  I sure can. Why do so many posters think that mischaracterizing another poster's point is to their benefit?  

[LongestHorn 759]

Surly is a walk out.

[DixonHur 11305]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I believe you, dude, you have multiple super rich black friends who have told you "that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them."

Absolutely. Mhmm. Yes.

Definitely.

Do you realize how racist you sound?  You're completely making my point, but you're too arrogant and condescending to even realize it.

I guess in your mind the only way black people can be successful is if whitey helps them.  It certainly couldn't be that they are intelligent, hard working, and good at what they do.  

This is exactly the kind of thinking/judgement black people face every day, and why, on balance, many people think the Civil Rights Act did more harm than good.

So instead of attacking me and my friends, why don't you respond to the two articles I posted and give us your thoughts on why African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the did in the preceding 30 years.

I can't wait.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Do you realize how racist you sound?  You're completely making my point, but you're too arrogant and condescending to even realize it.

I guess in your mind the only way black people can be successful is if whitey helps them.  It certainly couldn't be that they are intelligent, hard working, and good at what they do.  

This is exactly the kind of thinking/judgement black people face every day, and why, on balance, many people think the Civil Rights Act did more harm than good.

So instead of attacking me and my friends, why don't you respond to the two articles I posted and give us your thoughts on why African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the did in the preceding 30 years.

I can't wait.

I mean, the CRA only has 98% positive/neutral rating among blacks.

So yes, I guess I am being very racist against your completely and totally real (and very much multiple) super-wealthy black friends who think that the CRA is the worst thing that has happened to minorities. And I'm sorry. I apologize to those completely real and not-at-all fake people that 100% exist in your life without a doubt.

I also apologize to your Canadian supermodel girlfriend. I hope all of these real people that actually are alive in the world can forgive me.

It's me, the real racist who thinks slavery was worse than the CRA. #GalaxyRightWingBrain

But to address the issue of black progress, what actual metric are you using when you say, "African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the(y) did in the preceding 30 years"? What is it you mean by that, specifically? I'll be happy to respond once I know what you're talking about.

[DixonHur 11305]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I mean, the CRA only has 98% positive/neutral rating among blacks.

So yes, I guess I am being very racist against your completely and totally real (and very much multiple) super-wealthy black friends who think that the CRA is the worst thing that has happened to minorities. And I'm sorry. I apologize to those completely real and not-at-all fake people that 100% exist in your life without a doubt.

I also apologize to your Canadian supermodel girlfriend. I hope all of these real people that actually are alive in the world can forgive me.

It's me, the real racist who thinks slavery was worse than the CRA. #GalaxyRightWingBrain

But to address the issue of black progress, what actual metric are you using when you say, "African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the(y) did in the preceding 30 years"? What is it you mean by that, specifically? I'll be happy to respond once I know what you're talking about.

Hey Swam, please point to the post where I said blacks are worse off today than during slavery.  Or perhaps you could point to the post where I said blacks were better off in 1968 than they are today?

Saying I think the would have been better off today without the CRA is different than saying things are the same or worse than they were.  I suspect you're smart enough to realize that, but I wouldn't know it from your posts on the subject.

As for the "actual metrics" regarding progress, look at the articles I posted earlier.  One is from WaPo and the other from the Brookings Institute. 

My problem with the CRA is that it immediately made blacks (and other minorities to a lesser extent) the "other".  I don't know what your ancestry is, but if you're non-English like me, your family likely faced discrimination upon landing in America.  Obviously not to the extent of black Americans, but bear with me for a moment.  Let's say you were an Irish American in the early 19th century and the US passed a law giving you special status to help you succeed.  Do you think that would have helped you overcome the sterotype of being ignorant and lazy (which is how Irish were portrayed) in the eyes of the folks who were discriminating against you?  Or do you think it would have further entrenched that belief in them?  And how would you, as the child in an Irish household have felt if you were told the only reason you were succeeding was because you got "special treatment"?  Would that help or hurt your self worth?

Would some folks rise above all that and succeed?  Absolutely, but I'd venture many more would not. 

One of my partners, Uri, in particular wrote a moving letter to friends thanking them for their support.  He was the first among the first black students at his law school and in the letter he detailed some of the abhorrent treatment he received from some of his law school classmates who called him a token, claimed he was taking a spot from "more qualified" students (aka white folk), and ever received death threats.  This was in the 90's! 

Do you think people would have been asking to see Obama's transcripts if he were white?  I'm guessing, no.

Here's a list of some major accomplishments by African Americans pre-CRA...

USC's football team integrates - 1920's

Hattie McDaniel - first African American to win an Oscar (Best Supporting Actress) - 1940

NFL Integration began in 1946...the last team to integrate was the Washington Redskins - 1962

Jackie Robinson breaks the MLB color barrier - 1947

Dorothy Dandridge - first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar - 1955

Nat King Cole - first African American to host a TV show - 1956

Ella Fitzgerald - first black woman to win a Grammy award - 1958 (Count Basie won one the next year)

Sidney Poitier - first black actor to win an Oscar for Best Actor - 1963

 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

42 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Hey Swam, please point to the post where I said blacks are worse off today than during slavery.

I never said you said that.

Quote

  Or perhaps you could point to the post where I said blacks were better off in 1968 than they are today?

I never said you said that.

I don't know why you are so dishonest, but it makes this conversation tedious. I quote your own words back to you and you get really defensive and upset. It's weird. It's almost like your worldview is ignorant and reprehensible.

Quote

My problem with the CRA is that it immediately made blacks (and other minorities to a lesser extent) the "other". 

Blacks in America weren't considered "the other" BEFORE the CRA? Are you mentally fucking retarded?

Quote

I don't know what your ancestry is, but if you're non-English like me, your family likely faced discrimination upon landing in America.  Obviously not to the extent of black Americans, but bear with me for a moment.  Let's say you were an Irish American in the early 19th century and the US passed a law giving you special status to help you succeed.  Do you think that would have helped you overcome the sterotype of being ignorant and lazy (which is how Irish were portrayed) in the eyes of the folks who were discriminating against you?  Or do you think it would have further entrenched that belief in them?  And how would you, as the child in an Irish household have felt if you were told the only reason you were succeeding was because you got "special treatment"?  Would that help or hurt your self worth?

Regarding the bolded part... why would I care?

If I am being chained to a post and whipped, I care about the whipping, not the secret heart of the man holding the whip.

It's fucking hilarious that you have managed to make the issue of black civil emancipation an issue of whether or not it cured the white soul. Holy shit you're broken.

Quote

One of my partners, Uri, in particular wrote a moving letter to friends thanking them for their support.  He was the first among the first black students at his law school and in the letter he detailed some of the abhorrent treatment he received from some of his law school classmates who called him a token, claimed he was taking a spot from "more qualified" students (aka white folk), and ever received death threats.  This was in the 90's! 

Racism? In MY America!?

[DixonHur 11305]

So I guess you're going to stick to you platitudes, snark, and intellectual dishonesty instead of responding with actual fact based counterpoints. 

Denying that the below quotes suggest that I said blacks had it better during slavery, or pre-CRA is pure Swam level bullshit. 

Quote

I mean, the CRA only has 98% positive/neutral rating among blacks.

Quote

So yes, I guess I am being very racist against your completely and totally real (and very much multiple) super-wealthy black friends who think that the CRA is the worst thing that has happened to minorities. And I'm sorry. I apologize to those completely real and not-at-all fake people that 100% exist in your life without a doubt.

Quote

It's me, the real racist who thinks slavery was worse than the CRA. #GalaxyRightWingBrain

So what, pray tell, was the point of these comments if not to highlight a difference between our positions?  Just random musings of a crazy person?  You're smarter than that.

You're being a troll.  Full stop.

Ooh, 98% of blacks have a positive (or neutral) view of the CRA.  Well no shit Sherlock.  The point isn't whether or not the CRA helped black people.  The point is black people were already making advancements in society and there is evidence to suggest the pace of progress slowed after the CRA. 

The evidence seems to suggest that societal change and the resulting economic pressure effects for more change than legislation.  Do you know what the biggest drivers behind the abolition of slavery were?  It was the Industrial Revolution and changing public opinion. 

So until, and unless, you respond to the data provided in the links I've provided, I'm done responding to your trolling.

[David Dennison 18860]

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Do you know what the biggest drivers behind the abolition of slavery were?  It was the Industrial Revolution and changing public opinion. 

What was the biggest driver behind the abolition of slavery in states that joined the Confederacy?

[bad_teammate 13195]

Quote

So what, pray tell, was the point of these comments if not to highlight a difference between our positions?  Just random musings of a crazy person?  You're smarter than that.

We absolutely have differences of opinion, but you are outright lying about what I have said.  At no point did I say you said blacks are worse off today than during slavery. At no point did I say that blacks were better off in 1968 than they were today. You’re lying. Stop doing that.

Here is what you said that I am mocking:
“I honestly believe that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them.”

These are words you chose to write on purpose and it’s amazing and funny.

And then you double-down with this:

Quote

Do you know what the biggest drivers behind the abolition of slavery were?  It was the Industrial Revolution and changing public opinion. 

The biggest driver behind the abolition of slavery was the 13th amendment.

Reading Grand 'Ole South romantic apologetics in 2018 is a real treat.

[DixonHur 11305]

Quote

Here is what you said that I am mocking:
“I honestly believe that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them.”

These are words you chose to write on purpose and it’s amazing and funny.

Which is exactly what Swam would do when he didn't have any data to counter a claim.  If that's your idea of debate then fine, I now know that about you. 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

We absolutely have differences of opinion, but you are outright lying about what I have said.  At no point did I say you said blacks are worse off today than during slavery. At no point did I say that blacks were better off in 1968 than they were today. You’re lying. Stop doing that.

Then, again, please tell me what you meant by mentioning it in juxtaposition to my opinion?

Quote

The biggest driver behind the abolition of slavery was the 13th amendment.

Reading Grand 'Ole South romantic apologetics in 2018 is a real treat.

I have to admit that I was being vague on purpose here as a kind of trap that I knew you would walk right into.  You and David know that slavery existed outside the US right?  In fact the US only accounted for about 4% of African slaves.  The entirety of the US had about the same number of slaves as the Dutch West Indies.  All other countries banned slavery, most before the US, and without the need for a civil war.  They did so because the Industrial Revolution made slavery largely unnecessary. Therefore it isn't a stretch to imagine that slavery would have ended in the US without need of a war either.  But we'll never know.

By the way, here's more data that suggests you're living in a fantasy land where the CRA was the key to African American advancement...this time from Yale

Quote

High-income white Americans were more likely to overestimate racial economic equality compared to both low-income white Americans and black Americans across all income levels, according to the researchers. They also found that people’s belief that society is just and fair predicted their tendency to overestimate racial economic equality.

My opinion began during a conversation with friends, and was strengthened by looking at the data that suggest progress among African Americans was moving more quickly before the CRA than it has after.  You can choose to discount if you want, but I prefer data to "feelings".

Edited April 3, 2018 by DixonHur

[DixonHur 11305]

editing error

Edited April 3, 2018 by DixonHur
duplicate

[bad_teammate 13195]

Quote

Which is exactly what Swam would do when he didn't have any data to counter a claim.

Wait,  you want data to counter your claim that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"?

Here you go, some salient data points:
- Black people are not legally enslaved anymore (unless they are imprisoned, in which case they are still enslaved). That is better than not being a slave.
- Black people can own land. That is better than not being able to own land.
- Black people can vote. That is better than not being able to vote.
- Black people must be treated equally in housing. That is better than not being treated equally in housing.

There are four data points that show how fucking stupid your statement is.

Quote

Then, again, please tell me what you meant by mentioning it in juxtaposition to my opinion?

You said that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them", but I think slavery was worse. It's not complicated.

Quote

All other countries banned slavery, most before the US, and without the need for a civil war.  They did so because the Industrial Revolution made slavery largely unnecessary. Therefore it isn't a stretch to imagine that slavery would have ended in the US without need of a war either.

Then why didn't it?

A trap, built by an idiot, that smashes his own nuts.

Quote

By the way, here's more data that suggests you're living in a fantasy land where the CRA was the key to African American advancement...this time from Yale

When did I say the CRA was the key to black advancement? You're a liar. Stop being a liar.

The CRA was a very necessary step in black rights progress, but not a panacea to all of America's myriad racial ills. No one has claimed it was.

Quote

... strengthened by looking at the data that suggest progress among African Americans was moving more quickly before the CRA than it has after. ...

You have provided zero data to back this up. The rising economic tide of the New Deal and WWII lifted all boats. Wage stagnation for the last 4 decades has impacted all races (but blacks more). 

From your Brookings link... lol
--------------------------------------
In addition, the greatest economic gains for African Americans since the early 1960s were in the years 1965 to 1975 and occurred mainly in the South, as economists John J. Donahue III and James Heckman have found. In fact, Donahue and Heckman discovered “virtually no improvement” in the wages of black men relative to those of white men outside of the South over the entire period from 1963 to 1987, and southern gains, they concluded, were mainly due to the powerful antidiscrimination provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
--------------------------------------

Do you even read the shit you link?

[DixonHur 11305]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Wait,  you want data to counter your claim that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"?

Here you go, some salient data points:
- Black people are not legally enslaved anymore (unless they are imprisoned, in which case they are still enslaved). That is better than not being a slave.
- Black people can own land. That is better than not being able to own land.
- Black people can vote. That is better than not being able to vote.
- Black people must be treated equally in housing. That is better than not being treated equally in housing.

There are four data points that show how fucking stupid your statement is.

Thanks 1865,  but what the fuck does that have to do with the CRA?

 

Quote

You said that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them", but I think slavery was worse. It's not complicated

Yes, slavery as an institution sucks...and I feel for all  those who have suffered through it, but it wasn't exclusive to Africans in the "New World".  Slavery has existed in every culture, and in every time period up to the 1980's.  In fact, the last country to ban slavery was Mauritania...in AFRICA.  And that doesn't include the illegal slave trade that still exists around the world.

But ask yourself this...if you were black, would you have rather been born in the US or somewhere like Ghana or Angola?  I've been to both, and trust me, you wouldn't want to be born there...our homeless are equivalent to their middle class.  So while slavery sucked for the slaves, their decedents have benefited from it.  Sorry, facts don't have feelings.

Quote

Then why didn't it?

A trap, built by an idiot, that smashes his own nuts.

Really?  You immediately went to the 13th Amendment to counter the fact that the Industrial Revolution was the most important precursor to the end of slavery.  Pretty sure the 13th only applied to American slaves. Not the other 96% of trans-Atlantic slaves who were freed.

 

Quote

From your Brookings link... lol

--------------------------------------
In addition, the greatest economic gains for African Americans since the early 1960s were in the years 1965 to 1975 and occurred mainly in the South, as economists John J. Donahue III and James Heckman have found. In fact, Donahue and Heckman discovered “virtually no improvement” in the wages of black men relative to those of white men outside of the South over the entire period from 1963 to 1987, and southern gains, they concluded, were mainly due to the powerful antidiscrimination provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
--------------------------------------

Do you even read the shit you link?

Of course I read the fucking thing, and you're cherry picking one part of the 3,000 word document that somehow you feel proves your point.  Is if supposed to be shocking that minorities living in areas with the most racism benefited most from the laws?  No way...that's crazy. 

I guess you missed these parts...

Quote

Beginning in the 1940s, however, deep demographic and economic change, accompanied by a marked shift in white racial attitudes, started blacks down the road to much greater equality. New Deal legislation, which set minimum wages and hours and eliminated the incentive of southern employers to hire low-wage black workers, put a damper on further industrial development in the region. In addition, the trend toward mechanized agriculture and a diminished demand for American cotton in the face of international competition combined to displace blacks from the land.

As a consequence, with the shortage of workers in northern manufacturing plants following the outbreak of World War II, southern blacks in search of jobs boarded trains and buses in a Great Migration that lasted through the mid-1960s. They found what they were looking for: wages so strikingly high that in 1953 the average income for a black family in the North was almost twice that of those who remained in the South. And through much of the 1950s wages rose steadily and unemployment was low.

Thus by 1960 only one out of seven black men still labored on the land, and almost a quarter were in white-collar or skilled manual occupations. Another 24 percent had semiskilled factory jobs that meant membership in the stable working class, while the proportion of black women working as servants had been cut in half. Even those who did not move up into higher-ranking jobs were doing much better.

A decade later, the gains were even more striking. From 1940 to 1970, black men cut the income gap by about a third, and by 1970 they were earning (on average) roughly 60 percent of what white men took in. The advancement of black women was even more impressive. Black life expectancy went up dramatically, as did black homeownership rates. Black college enrollment also rose—by 1970 to about 10 percent of the total, three times the prewar figure.

In subsequent years these trends continued, although at a more leisurely pace. For instance, today more than 30 percent of black men and nearly 60 percent of black women hold white-collar jobs. Whereas in 1970 only 2.2 percent of American physicians were black, the figure is now 4.5 percent. But while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

Again, no one is saying the CRA didn't help anyone, but there is strong evidence to suggest it hurt more than it helped.

I almost all cases...not just cases of descrimination, I think it is better to let the courts, changes in society, and economic pressure in the forms of boycotts, etc. change things as opposed to legislation. 

You obviously feel legislation is the way to go, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Thanks 1865,  but what the fuck does that have to do with the CRA?

In the post you quote, I do not specifically limit my statement to the CRA. I am responding to your idiotic assertion that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them" and, in doing so, am listing various different legal protections given to blacks. This includes the 13th amendment, the CRA of 1964, the VRA of 1965, and many other pieces of legislation that have materially and irrefutably improved the lives of black Americans as a whole.

Quote

So while slavery sucked for the slaves, their decedents have benefited from it.  Sorry, facts don't have feelings.

Oh hell yes dude, hit me with that good "slavery was actually good for the blacks, so YOU'RE WELCOME!" shit.

Hell yeah let's say blacks are better off in America than they are in Africa because colonialism isn't a thing and apartheid didn't exist and white supremacy didn't completely fuck over that entire continent for centuries. Come on, Ben Shaprio and Daily Stormer, pump that white supremacy right into my veins.

Quote

Really?

Yes, really, answer the question. If the Industrial Revolution was bound to free the slaves, why was it not done in the American South? Why did the American South find slavery so vital to their lives that they literally seceded and started a war to protect it? What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started? Please educate me.
 

Quote

 Is if supposed to be shocking that minorities living in areas with the most racism benefited most from the laws?

Yes, that's obvious. So why did you say that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"? You're contradicting yourself.

Edited April 4, 2018 by bad_teammate

[DixonHur 11305]

Quote

Oh hell yes dude, hit me with that good "slavery was actually good for the blacks, so YOU'RE WELCOME!" shit.

Hell yeah let's say blacks are better off in America than they are in Africa because colonialism isn't a thing and apartheid didn't exist and white supremacy didn't completely fuck over that entire continent for centuries. Come on, Ben Shaprio and Daily Stormer, pump that white supremacy right into my veins.

Are you applying for Chief Goal Post mover?  Colonialism happened...white supremacy exists in the USA,, and apartheid happened in South Africa, where there was no Atlantic slave trade so don't pull that crap.  The world is what it is... 

So answer the question, it's really simple...if you were black, would you rather be born in the US or sub-Saharan Africa?

Quote

Yes, really, answer the question. If the Industrial Revolution was bound to free the slaves, why was it not done in the American South? Why did the American South find slavery so vital to their lives that they literally seceded and started a war to protect it? What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started? Please educate me.

In America, the Industrial Revolution began in the Northern states...specifically in 1793 at a cotton mill in Pawtucket, RI.  By 1821, all Northern states were slave free.  With the abolition of slavery in the North came the abolitionists.  Weird how that happened.

But progress doesn't always move at the pace you'd like it to, so the South lagged behind due to simple economics.  Slavery was profitable for the Southerners.  However, it would have happened in time...likely before 1888 when Brazil, the last of the Atlantic Slave Trade countries, formally abolished slavery.  So, while it may have taken about 20 years more to happen, it would have happened because it would have become unsustainable.  Not only would customers been demanding a change, but the costs associated with slave ownership would have eventually made slavery more costly than the alternative.  Econ 101.

And so not unlike what the US did to cause the collapse of the USSR, had the Northerners (and anti-slave countries such as the UK, Spain, France, etc.) used economic pressure instead of bullying and brute force, we probably could have avoided the Civil War, just as every other country that abolished slavery had done.

That in turn would have probably lessened the rift between North and South that still exists today.

Quote

Yes, that's obvious. So why did you say that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"? You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself.  I still believe that giving any group special status does more harm than good, because it not only perpetuates stereotypes, but also increases any existing animosity...it becomes us against them.

I'm a finance person.  I don't give a shit about color or creed...I see everything in economic terms...purely dollars and cents.  It may seem insensitive, but I don't let emotions get in the way of data.  I have plenty of empathy, but not a lot of sympathy.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this discussion as we are, so if you feel like following up, let's do it via direct message.

[Brisketexan 105143]

Oh hell yes dude, hit me with that good "slavery was actually good for the blacks, so YOU'RE WELCOME!" shit.
Hell yeah let's say blacks are better off in America than they are in Africa because colonialism isn't a thing and apartheid didn't exist and white supremacy didn't completely fuck over that entire continent for centuries. Come on, Ben Shaprio and Daily Stormer, pump that white supremacy right into my veins.

Are you applying for Chief Goal Post mover?  Colonialism happened...white supremacy exists in the USA,, and apartheid happened in South Africa, where there was no Atlantic slave trade so don't pull that crap.  The world is what it is... 
So answer the question, it's really simple...if you were black, would you rather be born in the US or sub-Saharan Africa?

Yes, really, answer the question. If the Industrial Revolution was bound to free the slaves, why was it not done in the American South? Why did the American South find slavery so vital to their lives that they literally seceded and started a war to protect it? What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started? Please educate me.

In America, the Industrial Revolution began in the Northern states...specifically in 1793 at a cotton mill in Pawtucket, RI.  By 1821, all Northern states were slave free.  With the abolition of slavery in the North came the abolitionists.  Weird how that happened.
But progress doesn't always move at the pace you'd like it to, so the South lagged behind due to simple economics.  Slavery was profitable for the Southerners.  However, it would have happened in time...likely before 1888 when Brazil, the last of the Atlantic Slave Trade countries, formally abolished slavery.  So, while it may have taken about 20 years more to happen, it would have happened because it would have become unsustainable.  Not only would customers been demanding a change, but the costs associated with slave ownership would have eventually made slavery more costly than the alternative.  Econ 101.
And so not unlike what the US did to cause the collapse of the USSR, had the Northerners (and anti-slave countries such as the UK, Spain, France, etc.) used economic pressure instead of bullying and brute force, we probably could have avoided the Civil War, just as every other country that abolished slavery had done.
That in turn would have probably lessened the rift between North and South that still exists today.

Yes, that's obvious. So why did you say that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"? You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself.  I still believe that giving any group special status does more harm than good, because it not only perpetuates stereotypes, but also increases any existing animosity...it becomes us against them.
I'm a finance person.  I don't give a shit about color or creed...I see everything in economic terms...purely dollars and cents.  It may seem insensitive, but I don't let emotions get in the way of data.  I have plenty of empathy, but not a lot of sympathy.
Anyway, I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this discussion as we are, so if you feel like following up, let's do it via direct message.

Man. Been watching this shitshow....and wow.

I’m curious how banning slavery of ANY person gives black folks “special status.” And how banning discrimination based on race - any race - gives black folks “special status.”

It’s really easy to say such stupidity when you are remote from be reality that existed - remote either by race, or by time. It’s embarrassing, but easy.

[bad_teammate 13195]

edit

Nevermind, Brisket got some formatting errors and it confused me.

Edited April 4, 2018 by bad_teammate

[DixonHur 11305]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I’m curious how banning slavery of ANY person gives black folks “special status.”

Me too considering it was never said once during the entire discussion.

Quote

And how banning discrimination based on race - any race - gives black folks “special status.”

This was also not claimed.  Where was it said black folks have a "special status?

I said anytime a group is given special status it's bad....and all this started in response to BT's claim that it would be unfair to military service members and vets who were not of age, if an age restriction were put on the purchase of guns.

But specifically as it relates to the CRA, I think that stuff needs to be worked out in the courts, not the legislature.

and Yes, it's been a shit show...oddly I actually really like BT as a poster.  We just happen to really disagree on this topic.  Never said my beliefs are mainstream, but at least I'm honest and consistent.

Edited April 4, 2018 by DixonHur

[bad_teammate 13195]

You need to stop the Ben Shapiro "facts don't care about your feelings" schtick, because your arguments are almost entirely devoid of actual facts and your sources contradict you when you say things like "I still believe that giving any group special status does more harm than good, because it not only perpetuates stereotypes, but also increases any existing animosity...it becomes us against them."

Brookings (your link, recall)

- In 1958, 44 percent of whites said they would move if a black family became their next door neighbor; today the figure is 1 percent.

- In 1964, the year the great Civil Rights Act was passed, only 18 percent of whites claimed to have a friend who was black; today 86 percent say they do, while 87 percent of blacks assert they have white friends.

Facts don't care about your beliefs, I guess.

Quote

In America, the Industrial Revolution began in the Northern states...specifically in 1793 at a cotton mill in Pawtucket, RI.  By 1821, all Northern states were slave free.  With the abolition of slavery in the North came the abolitionists.  Weird how that happened.

The state of Vermont's constitution in 1777 abolished slavery in that state. How is that possible if abolitionists only came after the abolition of slavery in the North (which actually didn't fully happen until after the Civil War)?

Quote

But progress doesn't always move at the pace you'd like it to, so the South lagged behind due to simple economics.  Slavery was profitable for the Southerners.  However, it would have happened in time...likely before 1888 when Brazil, the last of the Atlantic Slave Trade countries, formally abolished slavery.  So, while it may have taken about 20 years more to happen, it would have happened because it would have become unsustainable.  Not only would customers been demanding a change, but the costs associated with slave ownership would have eventually made slavery more costly than the alternative.  Econ 101.

This is a load of supposition about what theoretically would have happened. I'll ask again, What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started?

Old South apologists are constantly talking about how slavery would have worked itself out eventually, but I see no movement towards that in the antebellum South. You can feel confident in your convictions, but that's not worth much of anything.

And given the South's continued violent and furious resistance to black civil rights, I have no reason to believe that a swell of racial fellow feeling would've materialized out of the thin, white air.

It makes no sense that free labor is somehow devalued by machines. It is a basic law of economic capitalism that business will pay as little as it can get away with according to the law or market, so if it is legal to enslave free labor, what mechanism existed in the South to prevent the continuance of slavery?

You harp on being some kind of cold data machine, but most of your argument is based on beliefs that you feel are true.

[Washpark 176]

Going to call bullshit that economics would have ended slavery. We had to implement minimum wage for a reason. For profit institutions will find a way to exploit labor and slavery is an extreme form of that model. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Washpark

[bad_teammate 13195]

No no no, once you have a machine you want to give all your workers a big raise because... machines.

 

MACHINES!

[DixonHur 11305]

I'll happily answer all your questions via private message.  This has turned into a binary debate, in which I'm not going to change your opinion, just as you won't change mine, so I don't see the to continue to bumping the thread every 5 minutes in perpetuity. 

[DixonHur 11305]

1 minute ago, Washpark said:

Going to call bullshit that economics would have ended slavery. We had to implement minimum wage for a reason. For profit institutions will find a way to exploit labor and slavery is an extreme form of that model. 

So you agree, implementing a minimum wage could have prevented the Civil War.

Anyway, you're leaving out an entire half of the economic equation...the South would still have to SELL it's cotton.  Their largest markets were the Northern state, Canada, and England.  All of whom were very anti-slave.

Anyway, I'm out...I'll PM you BT

[bad_teammate 13195]

When white people talk about the civil rights movement increasing racial animosity, they are manifesting white fragility.

Quote

White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility.

The black civil rights movement forces the whites paying attention to actually consider and face racial strife. For centuries, whites had such power dominance over blacks that whites could essentially pretend there was no racial animosity. The whole time, of course, blacks are constantly facing the reality of overwhelming racial animosity, but they cannot talk about it or even let it show on their faces lest the white society literally murder them.

[Washpark 176]

57 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you agree, implementing a minimum wage could have prevented the Civil War.

Anyway, you're leaving out an entire half of the economic equation...the South would still have to SELL it's cotton.  Their largest markets were the Northern state, Canada, and England.  All of whom were very anti-slave.

Anyway, I'm out...I'll PM you BT

Mining and minerals still use slave population illegally. Commodities are hard to boycott and you assume that the north and England would care enough. 

We support a lot of bad governments in our need for oil. 

I struggle how anyone can see enough of a link between economic warfare and ability to force another nation to abide by improsed rules \ wishes. We have seen in intl politics that trade warfare rarely changes other nations policies. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Washpark

[Nolacycling 893]

Not a walkout, but... Nationwide a picture is circulating on social media of someone holding a gun with the caption "Going out w/a bang. Fuck CHS."

I teach at a CHS, must be 1000'S more. Students and parents are using this post as a reason to not be at school. My attendance is at 50%. This will become the new "pulling the fire alarm or calling in a bomb threat."