(05-09-2019 10:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint?

The same way an atheist mayor can represent Christian constituents or vice versa

I have lots of personal opinions that I don't think should be law, nor would they meaningfully impact my legislative agenda. It would be almost impossible however for (as an example) a straight person to not initially see things through the eyes of a straight person, and a gay person through those eyes. It's our experience and perspective and it shapes our lives. But if I can imagine, or I am made aware of something in my thoughts or policies that is damaging to a group of people, I can adapt and consider and represent those opinions.

I might actually be better at convincing 'the majority' to go along with me than someone who sees things through 'the minority' lens, and has more trouble relating to that majority.

Otherwise you're literally seeking 'the perfect non-descript person' to hold every single political position in all parts of government... which is impossible and will ultimately be a lie.

I'd rather have someone tell me they aren't comfortable with something personally, but will do their best to represent those opinions fairly, than to tell me that they 'get it' when they really don't.

Your comment though begs this question...
What about those constituents who for any of a number of reasons also don't support inter-racial marriage or whatever else? Do they not deserve representation either? I'd point out that 50 years ago, this would have been the exact opposite, and people who supported gay rights and equality and inter-racial marriage would have been denied representation... and we might not be the country we are today.

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.
Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.
You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.
You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

(05-09-2019 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

That doesn’t answer my question I posed originally. Please do that before you ask me a tangential one.

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Got it. You've made this point before that the discrimination that black people sense isn't "real".

What accounts for the lack of black people at executive positions in Fo
Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

You have made this point previously... that you don't think that the discrimination that black people say that they experience is "real"?

How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

(05-09-2019 01:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the biggest difference between me and Lad/93 is that I remember 1955 - real discrimination. I see so much difference now.

Quote:Sure, some people still will discriminate. Individually. Small businesses. So how are you going to enforce your views on them?

Proportionality is a false benchmark. I used to run a company with 100% hispanic employees. No blacks. No Asians. No whites. But I did not hire on the basis of race or ethnicity. I just needed bilingual people, and in those areas where my offices were, there were very few white/black/asian people who were bilingual. Sorry about that. I hired the best people available.

But then I see black-owned businesses bragging about how they hire only black employees. Is that OK?

(05-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

You have made this point previously... that you don't think that the discrimination that black people say that they experience is "real"?

How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

Proportionality is a bad benchmark. CEOs of fortune 500 companies largely started in the business decades ago. It is a result of cumulative effects. the numbers of black CEOs is growing. Check in again in 40 years.

Two equally qualified candidates...? Got an example?

(05-09-2019 01:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the biggest difference between me and Lad/93 is that I remember 1955 - real discrimination. I see so much difference now.

I agree that things have gotten much better since 1955. There is still quite a ways to go before we can sit on our laurels and claim equality, though.

Quote:Sure, some people still will discriminate. Individually. Small businesses. So how are you going to enforce your views on them?

Proportionality is a false benchmark. I used to run a company with 100% hispanic employees. No blacks. No Asians. No whites. But I did not hire on the basis of race or ethnicity. I just needed bilingual people, and in those areas where my offices were, there were very few white/black/asian people who were bilingual. Sorry about that. I hired the best people available.

But then I see black-owned businesses bragging about how they hire only black employees. Is that OK?

(05-09-2019 01:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the biggest difference between me and Lad/93 is that I remember 1955 - real discrimination. I see so much difference now.

I agree that things have gotten much better since 1955. There is still quite a ways to go before we can sit on our laurels and claim equality, though.

Quote:Sure, some people still will discriminate. Individually. Small businesses. So how are you going to enforce your views on them?

Proportionality is a false benchmark. I used to run a company with 100% hispanic employees. No blacks. No Asians. No whites. But I did not hire on the basis of race or ethnicity. I just needed bilingual people, and in those areas where my offices were, there were very few white/black/asian people who were bilingual. Sorry about that. I hired the best people available.

But then I see black-owned businesses bragging about how they hire only black employees. Is that OK?

That is an interesting question. Certainly, there would be massive public outcry if a white-owned business bragged about only hiring white people.

So why am I OK with a double standard? I guess you might look at this as as a reasonable "reparation". The rate of black unemployment is so much higher than white unemployment and systemic racism certainly accounts for a fair amount of this discrepancy. Systemic injustice over hundreds of years have also led to a giant gap in black wealth. If this plays a small part in closing the racial wealth gap then I am comfortable with it.

(05-09-2019 01:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Should we take black people's word for it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/10/25/559015355/how-black-americans-see-discrimination

"Almost all of the black people who responded — 92 percent — said they felt that discrimination against African-Americans exists in America today. At least half said they had personally experienced racial discrimination in being paid equally or promoted at work, when they applied for jobs or in their encounters with police."

If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

You have made this point previously... that you don't think that the discrimination that black people say that they experience is "real"?

How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

Proportionality is a bad benchmark. CEOs of fortune 500 companies largely started in the business decades ago. It is a result of cumulative effects. the numbers of black CEOs is growing. Check in again in 40 years.

Two equally qualified candidates...? Got an example?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

"Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts.

This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants' income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting.

The yearlong analysis, based on 31 million records, relied on techniques used by leading academics, the Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to identify lending disparities."

(05-09-2019 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the biggest difference between me and Lad/93 is that I remember 1955 - real discrimination. I see so much difference now.

I agree that things have gotten much better since 1955. There is still quite a ways to go before we can sit on our laurels and claim equality, though.

Quote:Sure, some people still will discriminate. Individually. Small businesses. So how are you going to enforce your views on them?

Proportionality is a false benchmark. I used to run a company with 100% hispanic employees. No blacks. No Asians. No whites. But I did not hire on the basis of race or ethnicity. I just needed bilingual people, and in those areas where my offices were, there were very few white/black/asian people who were bilingual. Sorry about that. I hired the best people available.

But then I see black-owned businesses bragging about how they hire only black employees. Is that OK?

That is an interesting question. Certainly, there would be massive public outcry if a white-owned business bragged about only hiring white people.

So why am I OK with a double standard? I guess you might look at this as as a reasonable "reparation". The rate of black unemployment is so much higher than white unemployment and systemic racism certainly accounts for a fair amount of this discrepancy. Systemic injustice over hundreds of years have also led to a giant gap in black wealth. If this plays a small part in closing the racial wealth gap then I am comfortable with it.

And your response points out the critical, stark, and unblemished difference between progressivism and libertarianism, or for that matter conservatism.

Progressivism is built and premised upon 'equality of outcome'. That is why it is so easy and prevalent for progressives to have the underlying and constant chant of 'things are still the same to Loving v. Virginia' days.

Furthermore this paradigm of government-directed and mandated 'equality of outcome' fits hand in glove with the predilection of progressive philosophy. That is, the idea that government *must* be used as the hammer to dictate, regulate, and ensure socially-acceptable (goodthink) outcomes.

I mean look at it -- this 'equality of outcome' outlook that serves as the basis or your definition of equality has you supporting 'reparations' vis a vis governmental decree or force of law.

But there is a huge and fundamental difference between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity'. In your paradigm, you apparently support government interaction or intervention to your vision of redistributionist policies to enable such outcome based equality.

Quote:In distinction, the view held on the opposite side says that people should be provided with an 'equal opportunity' --- such equal opportunity will (in the longer term) come to the steady-state 'outcome'. To wit, there *are* shortcomings in this realm -- no doubt. The education system up through high school is one huge shortcoming where we as a society absolutely need to do better to further such 'equal opportunity', no doubt.

Quote:But under the viewpoint of where we stand on an 'equal opportunity', while things are not *completely* copacetic, they are *parsecs* beyond where we stood as a society even compared with 50 years ago.

Quote:In that viewpoint, the explicit restrictions on 'opportunity' to a huge extent have been buried under. And the challenges still on the table are within the realm of addressable. But, if one were to believe the progressive chorus, one would have to believe that today's society (where any school is open, and level of education is open, and therefor any position in society is open) is no better than the antebellum plantation society.

(05-09-2019 02:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If they faced real discrimination, then as Lad says, they have legal redress. But often it is just a matter of perception.

Officer Harris pulls me over. He is taciturn. Gives me a ticket. I drive away thinking, what an *******.

Ten minutes later, officer Harris pulls over a black motorist, He is taciturn. Gives him a ticket. The motorist pulls away, thinking what a racist. Another DWB ticket.

Bet he would be in the 92%.

You have made this point previously... that you don't think that the discrimination that black people say that they experience is "real"?

How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

Proportionality is a bad benchmark. CEOs of fortune 500 companies largely started in the business decades ago. It is a result of cumulative effects. the numbers of black CEOs is growing. Check in again in 40 years.

Two equally qualified candidates...? Got an example?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

"Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts.

This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants' income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting.

The yearlong analysis, based on 31 million records, relied on techniques used by leading academics, the Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to identify lending disparities."

A couple of possibilities:

1. other factors. Generally, I see no advantage to the lenders in refusing loans to people of good credit who will likely pay back the loans fully and on time. So maybe there are other factors that make the lenders more fearful of bad loans.

2. Outright racism. Lenders in 61 areas all hate blacks. (Your choice, I am sure)

Can you think of any other possibilities?

(05-09-2019 02:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 02:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You have made this point previously... that you don't think that the discrimination that black people say that they experience is "real"?

How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

Proportionality is a bad benchmark. CEOs of fortune 500 companies largely started in the business decades ago. It is a result of cumulative effects. the numbers of black CEOs is growing. Check in again in 40 years.

Two equally qualified candidates...? Got an example?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-modern-day-redlining-20180215-story.html

"Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts.

This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants' income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting.

The yearlong analysis, based on 31 million records, relied on techniques used by leading academics, the Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to identify lending disparities."

A couple of possibilities:

1. other factors. Generally, I see no advantage to the lenders in refusing loans to people of good credit who will likely pay back the loans fully and on time. So maybe there are other factors that make the lenders more fearful of bad loans.

2. Outright racism. Lenders in 61 areas all hate blacks. (Your choice, I am sure)

Can you think of any other possibilities?

I would assume that it would be a combination of those two factors. However I believe that outright racism contributes significantly.