Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(09-22-2022, 08:55 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2022, 07:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I've said in multiple posts that slavery is not the proximate cause of the disparities we see today.  Redlining had the bigger impact.

---

If you're white and if your parents gave you any money to help you get started as an adult, you probably didn't have "anything to do with it" but they and you did benefit.

My parents didn't give me anything except a "good luck" on my way to boot camp. 

No matter how you try to spin it you're not going to convince me that I owe anyone reparations or anything else you want to call it. 

Do you know why Habitat for Humanity requires homebuyers to work for their house via sweat equity? They want the homebuyer to be invested in their house before they even move in. HFH is not going to just give people a house. We had a lady who was about a quarter of the way through her sweat equity when she called it quits. She didn't want to work for her house, she wanted them to give it to her. 

If people aren't willing to make an effort to get whatever they need be it a place to live, an education, a job/career, etc., they aren't going to have anything. All of the government programs that have been in place for decades have done nothing to get folks out of poverty, off of food stamps, out of public housing because they don't give people the incentive to do better.

(09-23-2022, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2022, 08:55 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]My parents didn't give me anything except a "good luck" on my way to boot camp. 

No matter how you try to spin it you're not going to convince me that I owe anyone reparations or anything else you want to call it. 

Do you know why Habitat for Humanity requires homebuyers to work for their house via sweat equity? They want the homebuyer to be invested in their house before they even move in. HFH is not going to just give people a house. We had a lady who was about a quarter of the way through her sweat equity when she called it quits. She didn't want to work for her house, she wanted them to give it to her. 

If people aren't willing to make an effort to get whatever they need be it a place to live, an education, a job/career, etc., they aren't going to have anything. All of the government programs that have been in place for decades have done nothing to get folks out of poverty, off of food stamps, out of public housing because they don't give people the incentive to do better.

It's simple.  If your parents didn't give you money, if you didn't inherit anything from them, you didn't benefit, and no one can say you owe anything.

(09-23-2022, 02:04 PM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's simple.  If your parents didn't give you money, if you didn't inherit anything from them, you didn't benefit, and no one can say you owe anything.

Dude, just [BLEEP].  Seriously just [BLEEP].

If she says she owes no one then who the HE!! are you to say otherwise?

That's not a rhetorical question; seriously who the hell are you to say otherwise?

(09-23-2022, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 02:04 PM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, just [BLEEP].  Seriously just [BLEEP].

If she says she owes no one then who the HE!! are you to say otherwise?

That's not a rhetorical question; seriously who the hell are you to say otherwise?

I didn't say otherwise. Who the hell are you to speak to me that way?

(09-23-2022, 02:04 PM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's simple.  If your parents didn't give you money, if you didn't inherit anything from them, you didn't benefit, and no one can say you owe anything.

Dude, just [BLEEP].  Seriously just [BLEEP].

If she says she owes no one then who the HE!! are you to say otherwise?

That's not a rhetorical question; seriously who the hell are you to say otherwise?

(09-23-2022, 08:47 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 02:04 PM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, just [BLEEP].  Seriously just [BLEEP].

If she says she owes no one then who the HE!! are you to say otherwise?

That's not a rhetorical question; seriously who the hell are you to say otherwise?

This is how he rolls. He's a contrarian and likes to think he's the smartest guy in the room. I try not to engage him often but sometimes I can't help it.

(09-23-2022, 09:03 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 08:47 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]This is how he rolls. He's a contrarian and likes to think he's the smartest guy in the room. I try not to engage him often but sometimes I can't help it.

He does tend to provoke even the most reasonable person. I do find it humorous that he hates Trump with such venom for being narcissistic.  Apparently they hate their own?

(09-23-2022, 09:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You guys say things that are easily refuted by Wikipedia and then you blame me for pointing out the facts that are well known enough to be easily found on Wikipedia.  If you are saying and believing things that are that obviously wrong, blame yourself.  Don't shoot the messenger.
The mental gymnastics part, yeah, I make connections that aren't obvious and not always justified. 
But I'm not trying to take anyone down or get anyone to think I'm smart.  I dont care if you think I'm smart.  I know I'm smart and thats enough.  I wouldn't mind if people said they agreed with me about something from time to time though.  Or that I was right about something from a while ago.  I mean I was right about Urban.

(09-23-2022, 09:03 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 08:47 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]This is how he rolls. He's a contrarian and likes to think he's the smartest guy in the room. I try not to engage him often but sometimes I can't help it.

He does tend to provoke even the most reasonable person. I do find it humorous that he hates Trump with such venom for being narcissistic.  Apparently they hate their own?

(09-23-2022, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 02:04 PM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, just [BLEEP].  Seriously just [BLEEP].

If she says she owes no one then who the HE!! are you to say otherwise?

That's not a rhetorical question; seriously who the hell are you to say otherwise?

I didn't say otherwise.

(09-24-2022, 11:41 AM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2022, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say otherwise.

Americus posted an assertion about herself, someone she is infinitely more qualified than you are to speak of.

You posted mansplaining why her assertion about herself was wrong.

She posted again reinforcing her assertion.

You again posted mansplaining why her assertion about herself was wrong.

It really wasn't that long ago; had you really forgotten already?  Ya mebbe wanna get checked for Alzheimer's or dementia or senility.

(09-24-2022, 12:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-24-2022, 11:41 AM)InvalidContentWasFoundStarting Wrote: [ -> ]Americus posted an assertion about herself, someone she is infinitely more qualified than you are to speak of.

You posted mansplaining why her assertion about herself was wrong.

She posted again reinforcing her assertion.

You again posted mansplaining why her assertion about herself was wrong.

It really wasn't that long ago; had you really forgotten already?  Ya mebbe wanna get checked for Alzheimer's or dementia or senility.

Whether or not one person owes anything to another person has nothing to do with self.  Debt is inherently social.
I mean that would be a nice trick if it wasn't, right?
"Sorry, Mr tax collector.  I've determined that don't owe anything to anyone."
"Hey Mr Repo Man, in my sense of self, the car is paid off, so you need to leave it here."
Anyhow, based on her getting nothing but "good luck!" from her parents when she went off to the military, she doesn't owe the previous generation anything, and any benefit her parents might have got from past racist practices didn't accrue to her.  So I say, and have said, that her assertion about herself is correct! So we actually agree! You don't need to be so disagreeable.

(09-20-2022, 08:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2022, 08:20 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Typically, I just drop these stories into an existing thread, but this woman so utterly eviscerated Don Lemon in such composed British form that it deserves its own billing. He looks absolutely flummoxed at the end. 

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1...eparations

Don Lemon is a uniquely ignorant individual, and the person he is interviewing certainly knows more than him about the topic. But she did present an extremely selective set of facts.
In general, African slaves were not brought to the British Isles.  
In general, the British freed the English speaking slaves in the Caribbean without compensation for their prior forced labor.
In general, white people in the British Caribbean got great benefits from that slave labor. 
Then, in general, after emancipation and over decades, those white people left the most populated islands like Jamaica and Trinidad, and ended up in Canada, or the British Isles, and spent/invested their fortunes there.
While this was going on, the British made efforts to improve the lives of black people in the Caribbean with public works projects, and also with efforts to re-settle them in the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Virgin Islands, and Sierra Leone.
Obviously these efforts were mixed at best 
Do they make up for the centuries of slavery, or is there more that the white Brits and Canadians should do? I don't know.  But it is a reasonable question.

(09-20-2022, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2022, 09:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's reasonable in the fact that is explores the history of African slavery. Does it support the argument that people today should receive monetary compensation for an institution that has been out of existence for generations? No.

People as individuals alive today do not deserve compensation, correct. 
However I don't think the British government has done enough to invest in places like Jamaica in ways that will really unlock the diverse economic potential of those places and lift more people out of poverty.

(09-22-2022, 08:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2022, 05:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I know you're just being devil's advocate here, and I appreciate that, but here's my opinion. 

I'm not in favor of assigning guilt or victimhood based on race.  Especially when so many people have the blood of multiple races in them, and so many people did not have ancestors who were perpetrators or victims.  Are my ancestors responsible for Jim Crow because they were white?  To say that, since some white people victimized some black people, then all white people are guilty and all black people are victims, is grossly unfair.  If a white person murders a black person tomorrow, would I share the guilt because I am white?  And if a crowd of black people have a riot and burn down several blocks of a city, are all black people responsible for that?  If you said they were, you'd be justifiably called a racist.  

And who in this country is white or black, anyway?  There are so many people of mixed race now.  Would we judge victimhood by measuring skin tone?  Would people have to do DNA tests to prove they are descended from a black person in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Better buy stock in Ancestry.com.  What if a person had a white and a black ancestor who lived in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Maybe he could move a few bucks from his right pocket to his left pocket.  Because he's a perpetrator and a victim.    

What do you think would happen if reparations are handed out based on race?  What do you tell a poor white person when a richer black person gets money because of his skin color?  Are you going to tell him that we should all be equal under the law, when you just violated that principle? That poor white guy is going to resent it, and you're going to see an explosion of racial resentment and racism when you hand out money to people of a certain race.  

The whole idea of assigning victimhood based on things that happened a hundred years ago, and basing it on skin color, is unworkable, and  destructive to our social fabric.  There's no denying history.  Things happened that were bad.  But we can't fix it in this case.

The higher the stakes, the more people lie.
People don't lie much on the elementary and high school lotteries we have to meet racial quotas at magnet and charter schools in some places.
But they do stretch the truth in college admissions.  Anyone with a drop of African ancestry is black, and Asians select "prefer not to say."
It wouldn't make much sense to have any kind of large benefit based on race, for that reason.
But a one time check probably isn't the right solution to the problem I described anyhow, even if no one would lie and we could make sure only the "right" people got the check.
The problem I'm describing is one where, 80 years ago, white people had the opportunity to get subsidized mortgages in desirable areas, while black people weren't permitted to live in those areas.  This remained true for about 30 years, in every part of the US. This, not slavery, is the main cause of the racial wealth disparity we see today.  I don't think we can ever make a race-based subsidized mortgage program, but perhaps we should have one based on if your parents are wealthy or not.  Similar to how colleges hand out financial aid based on calculated family wealth, an aid to first time homebuyers could be done the same way.

(09-24-2022, 07:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Redlining wasn't about which borrowers qualified for credit.  It was about which areas were allowed to become mostly homeowners vs other areas that remained mostly renters.  There were black people with sufficient income and savings to get a subsidized loan at the time.  But nearly all the houses they might have wanted to buy were either considered "risky" by the federal government or else they were in desirable areas that had "whites only" covenants.
The racial wealth disparity in this country is mainly driven by this.
You want to blame welfare and abortion, and I'm not arguing in favor of either of those things, but I am saying those things impacted poor whites and poor blacks equally.  The disparate impact was in the housing policy.

(09-24-2022, 08:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-24-2022, 07:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Redlining wasn't about which borrowers qualified for credit.  It was about which areas were allowed to become mostly homeowners vs other areas that remained mostly renters.  There were black people with sufficient income and savings to get a subsidized loan at the time.  But nearly all the houses they might have wanted to buy were either considered "risky" by the federal government or else they were in desirable areas that had "whites only" covenants.
The racial wealth disparity in this country is mainly driven by this.
You want to blame welfare and abortion, and I'm not arguing in favor of either of those things, but I am saying those things impacted poor whites and poor blacks equally.  The disparate impact was in the housing policy.

Lies lies LIES.  redlining was an intervetionary policy started by the federal government to categorize which loans should be federally backed and it bled over into private lending. That's what I said.  That has nothing yo do with the credit worthiness of the underlying population or their ability to offer barter in lieu of credit.  Correct.

Due to this reason the actual increase in HOME OWNERSHIP during the period of redlining was congruent between whites and blacks.  When you start out behind, you don't want to go just as fast as the guy in front of you.  You want to catch up.  The entire mortgage subsidy program was supposed to target the lower middle class regardless of race, so since blacks were disproportionately in the lower middle class, it should have helped them more than it did whites. So it is likely that blacks would have come closer to catching up in terms of home ownership rates if not for red lining, and racial covenants, and self-fulfilling prophesies about blacks ruining neighborhood values working against them.  And the rate of home ownership doesn't really capture if the family is building wealth - if society has decided that the home you own is no longer valuable due to your complexion or the complexion of your neighbors, your ability to pass wealth on to your children is greatly reduced.  This rarely happens now, but we know it was happening during our lifetimes, and the impact lasts.  Today in many areas bad zoning laws make it very difficult for low-wealth families to start down the road of home ownership.  In many areas, especially the West Coast, the time to buy was the late 70s and early 80s.  If your family didn't buy then, and you're lower middle class, you're SOL in terms of buying now.  You could have built some wealth then, but you won't now.  So it's nice that attitudes are much less racist now, but it's too late for many people in many areas.

I was not saying that abortion was the cause of the wealth disparity.  I am saying that during the mid 60s  black Amrica adopted self destructive sociopolitical ideologies  that derailed three decades of geometric economic progression and ALSO killed 20 million plus blacks! True but irrelevant.

(09-24-2022, 07:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Redlining wasn't about which borrowers qualified for credit.  It was about which areas were allowed to become mostly homeowners vs other areas that remained mostly renters.  There were black people with sufficient income and savings to get a subsidized loan at the time.  But nearly all the houses they might have wanted to buy were either considered "risky" by the federal government or else they were in desirable areas that had "whites only" covenants.
The racial wealth disparity in this country is mainly driven by this.
You want to blame welfare and abortion, and I'm not arguing in favor of either of those things, but I am saying those things impacted poor whites and poor blacks equally.  The disparate impact was in the housing policy.

(09-24-2022, 08:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-24-2022, 08:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Lies lies LIES.  redlining was an intervetionary policy started by the federal government to categorize which loans should be federally backed and it bled over into private lending. That's what I said.  That has nothing yo do with the credit worthiness of the underlying population or their ability to offer barter in lieu of credit.  Correct.

Due to this reason the actual increase in HOME OWNERSHIP during the period of redlining was congruent between whites and blacks.  When you start out behind, you don't want to go just as fast as the guy in front of you.  You want to catch up.  The entire mortgage subsidy program was supposed to target the lower middle class regardless of race, so since blacks were disproportionately in the lower middle class, it should have helped them more than it did whites.  So it is likely that blacks would have come closer to catching up in terms of home ownership rates if not for red lining, and racial covenants, and self-fulfilling prophesies about blacks ruining neighborhood values working against them.  And the rate of home ownership doesn't really capture if the family is building wealth - if society has decided that the home you own is no longer valuable due to your complexion or the complexion of your neighbors, your ability to pass wealth on to your children is greatly reduced.  This rarely happens now, but we know it was happening during our lifetimes, and the impact lasts.  Today in many areas bad zoning laws make it very difficult for low-wealth families to start down the road of home ownership.  In many areas, especially the West Coast, the time to buy was the late 70s and early 80s.  If your family didn't buy then, and you're lower middle class, you're SOL in terms of buying now.  You could have built some wealth then, but you won't now.  So it's nice that attitudes are much less racist now, but it's too late for many people in many areas.

I was not saying that abortion was the cause of the wealth disparity.  I am saying that during the mid 60s  black Amrica adopted self destructive sociopolitical ideologies  that derailed three decades of geometric economic progression and ALSO killed 20 million plus blacks! True but irrelevant.