(04-14-2021 07:46 AM)VA49er Wrote: (04-13-2021 09:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: (04-13-2021 06:04 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote: (04-13-2021 03:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: (04-13-2021 03:14 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote: WOW.
Wow? That's your response? LOL! What an idiot. In the meantime, explain how and why.
If he's serious, it's so idiotic it doesn't require a response. He (and you) have fallen down the rabbit hole.
Its idiotic to ask someone to give examples to support their claim? Hint... I TOLD you that I could answer the question myself, so obviously I believe examples exist... but I want to see if you're intelligent enough to have your own ideas/have done enough research to argue your points coherently, or if I am simply engaging with 'troll of the day'. Your unwillingness to defend your claim, followed by the transparent deflection of 'if you need me to explain it, you're down a rabbit hole' tripe is only worth on the elementary school playground.
Sounds like your question has been answered.
Exactly.
This moron is telling ME to open a few books... lol.
The amusing thing is... why would you OPEN a book? What would you learn from doing so? Someone else's perspective.... which is precisely what I asked him to provide to me.
I mean, you can't make this sort of stupidity up.
I clearly stated that I can provide my own examples, so examples clearly exist and I believe them.
Despite this, I clearly asked him to provide things that HE believes are examples... so I am specifically asking to become 'informed'... and his response is to decline to inform me, and to tell me to 'go get' informed??
So either he doesn't know... in which case he should take his own advice and become informed....
OR unlike me, he doesn't believe in 'whatever' examples he thinks exist so he doesn't want to state them and have them be corrected/proven false. Don't confuse him with facts, he's got his talking points.
I'll even start for him...
Black people have been kept down economically... they are grossly over-represented in the poor communities, which are also hotbeds for crime based on the despair of poverty and the constant memes of 'instant success' and the American dream. Policing in high 'personal' crime areas (assault, physical confrontations, drugs as opposed to fraud, cybertheft etc) is more aggressive because the crimes are more aggressive... and with more aggression comes more risk/fear... This however is a political and economic issue, not a racial one. It doesn't happen because they are black, it happens because the neighborhood is poor and crime ridden. The racial aspects of it are an effect, not a cause. The solution is to end the democratic strongholds on these people that keeps them tied physically to this despair under the false pretense of 'representation'. Gentrification which is another word for improving the value of a community is a 'crime' rather than a virtue. Intentional or not, this is the cause. The solution is to end the connection between physical locations and representation, at least or especially in dense population areas.... which would allow black people to access opportunities for economic advancement (or escape despair) without losing political power/representation. I can think of numerous ways to do this... proportional representation would be the one most frequently used in other nations, but there are other ways. Since its not my decision to make... I live in neither a poor nor densely populated district... I will not impose my opinion on others.. so for simplicity, let's just put proportional representation. This is especially effective in densely populated areas.... where Democrats are most frequently in control.
Such solutions could be piloted in various areas controlled by Democrats with almost no risk of losing a 'democratic' voice... to see which options might be best... or to prove that they do or do not work.
MOST of these egregious police actions are taking place in Democratic controlled areas, where democrats control the police. What they are doing is not working.... and it has nothing to do with Republicans.
In the 1950's, minorities were kept in 'certain' economically undesirable neighborhoods by racists trying to keep them under control. In the 2000's, minorities are kept in 'certain' economically undesirable neighborhoods with the purpose of GIVING them control... but the end result, either way is that they are kept in economically undesirable neighborhoods... and the source of almost ALL funds for new small businesses and economic growth is home ownership and home price appreciation, which is BY DESIGN discouraged in these neighborhoods... SO the acts have ABSOLUTELY AND DIRECTLY kept poor people, poor. How about we sell 'the inner city projects' to a developer and give the money to the people who have lived in those projects... provided that some meaningful portion of it, say 50% is used to purchase a business or another property??
SO, swag-guzzler....
I've just presented a very clear example of systemic racism... and given you a TINY example of a well-thought out problem with a potential solution... one that could be put into place by ONE party and follows most of the stated tenants of that party. It wouldn't require ONE SINGLE vote from 'the other side' to make happen, nor would it put 'that party' at a disadvantage. It even involves something akin to reparations, which the left generally supports on some level and the right does not.... and I could go on for pages about this... writing a 'book' that you claim to be so fond of. You may not agree with my solution and that's fine... I'm unaware of any meager qualifications you might have to even understand, much less evaluate my position... and quite frankly, I've vetted this with people VASTLY more informed than you appear to be...
I didn't claim this was the only example... I didn't even claim it was the best example... I merely claim that it is AN example... and one where action could be taken without needing some sort of compromise with 'the other side'.... only people who CLAIM to support those in these areas, actually putting their power where their mouths are. It doesn't even involve 'taking' anything from some people to 'give' it to others. At most, it involves giving people control over funds/things that have been set aside for them anyway.
NOW what foolish response do you have, Swag?