Any "fortunate" URM's Forum

[d34d9823]

I don't like how URM threads are so heavily Moderated. Whenever there is a gathering of minorities discussing issues, there has to be an authority present to keep the peace just like IRL.

You would prefer the racist venom flow unabated? I can see both sides here.

Think of us as fire extinguishers.

And, at least today, the "authority" is also URM (and, for the record, has censored exactly no one).

It doesn't matter, just like the law, you are expected to be impartial. I'm just pointing out a fact. People must teeter on what they say so threads don't get locked.

IMO, people have said some pretty offensive things (going both ways) in this thread and they're letting us hash it out.

[Rock Chalk]

.

[20121109]

I still disagree with your word choice, but it can't be helped. I think some of the things you put forth to further corroborate your point are starting to touch on that gray area wherein class and race become somewhat muddled. Perceived education is a valid point but I would have to say that the way poor URMs are victimized because they often have no clue as to how to remedy a discriminatory circumstance would speak more to the heightened effect of racism in their lives, rather than any added amount. Your point about poor black people experiencing things much worse than blacks more fortunate transcends the subset of race. I could also say, "Poor people experience things much worse than those experienced by wealthy people, and more frequently." The fact that you added a racial qualifier is a moot point.

To the bolded: Good point. I agree that I've conflated "more racism" with "being more negatively affected by racism." If you concede that poor black people are more negatively affected by racism then there's no further disagreement, as this was my general point (perhaps in rather ambiguous terms).

To the italicized: I do, however, think the racial qualifier is important. I'm not just saying poor black people are worse off than rich black people - that would indeed be intuitive. My point is that, among other things, poor black people are worse off because of racism, not that poor black people are worse off qua "poor," and they also endure the same racism.

Well, I'm quite certain that I've never contended the fact that poor black people are worse off because of racism. I would go a step further and say a vast majority of blacks (both upper and lower class) are worse off in general due to racism. So I would consider our views more convergent, than divergent at this point I still disagree about "less racism" in the upper class but meh...I don't wanna play anymore, lol...

That was a nice back and forth there, Rock Chalk <3

[Rock Chalk]

.

[LAWLAW09]

That said, stereotyping white society as systemically racist moves the discussion back, not forward.

I agree with this sentiment; I would also argue that this discussion has shown no signs of moving forward.

I think it's rather unfair to accuse me of stereotyping white America when the proof is in the pudding in regards to how the United States engages in practices with racist undertones in its systematic and institutional operations.

You can research bank practices, real estate market practices, corporate practices, etc. Racism in this day and age is not necessarily in your face but is ingrained in the culture under which various American bred institutions function.

This is no lie nor is it a stereotype.

[citation needed]

"White America" is a lil vague so how about we just say American institutions that were created by mostly White faces and those that are still maintained and operated by mostly White faces? Institutional racism does not preclude Blacks from perpetuating the discrimination that is consistently found when looked for in these and other institutions.



Just a few:



Housing:


"Even when income and credit risk are equal, African Americans are up to 34 percent more likely to receive higher‐rate and subprime loans with a prepayment penalty than are their similarly situated white counterparts."

"These practices have placed at least one million African Americans and other people of color at great risk of loss of wealth—an estimated loss of at least $164 billion."


--LinkRemoved--





Employment:



"Black job applicants without criminal records are equally likely to be hired as their white counterparts who have served time in prison, according to a recent Princeton University study."


http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news/ec ... ring_bias/

http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/p ... stern1.pdf



"Professors reported children with "black-sounding" names such as Lakisha and Jamal are 50 percent less likely to receive a call back for a job interview compared to "white-sounding" names such as Emily or Greg."



http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/26/na ... tml?hpt=C2

--LinkRemoved--



Criminal Sentencing (same results are found in conviction rates):



"Black and Hispanic men are more likely to receive longer prison sentences than their white counterparts since the Supreme Court loosened federal sentencing rules"





http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/12/9 ... ncing.html

--LinkRemoved--





I don't have a study to verify the last time a White called me a n***er, so you're going to have to take my word for it.



If that information is not credible enough for you, maybe you can name in era in American history when systemic racism and discrimination wasn't connected to the experience of the average Black American? I have no doubt you will provide many sources for that belief.

[Rock Chalk]

.

[d34d9823]

(facts & figures)

Good post.

Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

[3 Stripes]

OK, so far we've had a relatively even-tempered sociological AA/racism debate, followed by people actually bringing statistics to support an unsupported argument?

Despite the fact that I have nothing to do with this thread's success, I'm totally taking credit for it and depriving the URM posters of the recognition they deserve for their valid viewpoints supported by facts and figures.

[20121109]

OK, so far we've had a relatively even-tempered sociological AA/racism debate, followed by people actually bringing statistics to support an unsupported argument?

Despite the fact that I have nothing to do with this thread's success, I'm totally taking credit for it and depriving the URM posters of the recognition they deserve for their valid viewpoints supported by facts and figures.

You wouldn't agree that the valid viewpoints are self-evident just by reading through the thread and thus aren't really depriving posters of any recognition?

[3 Stripes]

OK, so far we've had a relatively even-tempered sociological AA/racism debate, followed by people actually bringing statistics to support an unsupported argument?

Despite the fact that I have nothing to do with this thread's success, I'm totally taking credit for it and depriving the URM posters of the recognition they deserve for their valid viewpoints supported by facts and figures.

You wouldn't agree that the valid viewpoints are self-evident just by reading through the thread and thus aren't really depriving posters of any recognition?

Touche, GAIA. Tou-fucking-che.

[LAWLAW09]

(facts & figures)

Good post.

Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

I feel you.

[3 Stripes]

(facts & figures)

Good post.

Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

I feel you.

Well, now we know thae I don't go around spewing unsupported bullshit.

Next time I make a statement, I'll be sure to have articles and documents available to support my claim.

It's funny that nobody would state "citation needed" if somebody were to make the statement that the sky is blue.

[d34d9823]

the sky is blue.

[citation needed]

[c0rpusdelicti]

I thought the part where I said "despite the fact..." would give away the fact that I was joking, but Gaia's response was well-played.

The lady got into Harvard for a reason!

[LAWLAW09]

(facts & figures)

Good post.

Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

Citation needed? Seriously. Almost 400 posts and you only use the words "citation needed" twice? Both appearing in the same day and in response to the same poster?

But, since we can tell you really hate unsupported assertions, we look forward to you providing some evidence that you really do hate unsupported assertions and that your response was not what it appears: an unsupported assertion.

As it stands currently, you either a) have never come across an unsupported assertion on TLS before or b) developed this hatred the minute you saw his post or c) was prepared to let your final thoughts on his claim appear to suggest the statement he made was at best, doubtful, and at worse, inaccurate.

Right now you appear to the poster child of an unattractive conditional reasoning setup.

If A, poster is full of bs.
If B, poster is probably full of bs.
If C, poster is foolish, considering the subject matter being discussed.

I typically am against acting cute on internet forums so I'm going to give honor to your hatred by not violating your principle. Until you provide us with some support for the bolded assertion above, I pick D) Poster is inconsistent, should have honorably tilted his king when info was provided, and was just provided more support for this assertion than what he was willing to provide when he made his own.



Let's get back to playing nice and keeping it real shall we.

[3 Stripes]

(facts & figures)

Good post.

Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

Citation needed? Seriously. Almost 400 posts and you only use the words "citation needed" twice? Both appearing in the same day and in response to the same poster?

But, since we can tell you really hate unsupported assertions, we look forward to you providing some evidence that you really do hate unsupported assertions and that your response was not what it appears: an unsupported assertion.

As it stands currently, you either a) have never come across an unsupported assertion on TLS before or b) developed this hatred the minute you saw his post or c) was prepared to let your final thoughts on his claim appear to suggest the statement he made was at best, doubtful, and at worse, inaccurate.

Right now you appear to the poster child of an unattractive conditional reasoning setup.

If A, poster is full of bs.
If B, poster is probably full of bs.
If C, poster is foolish, considering the subject matter being discussed.

I typically am against acting cute on internet forums so I'm going to give honor to your hatred by not violating your principle. Until you provide us with some support for the bolded assertion above, I pick D) Poster is inconsistent, should have honorably tilted his king when info was provided, and was just provided more support for this assertion than what he was willing to provide when he made his own.



Let's get back to playing nice and keeping it real shall we.

180. Got him.

But what happened to the answer choice "All of the above"?

[D Brooks]

I missed everything

[3 Stripes]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. 3S's sentiment was that, in general, society considers white people superior to black people, not that each member is expressedly racist.

What you said (bolded) is not nearly as strong as what he said. With all respect, I don't even think what you said is true. Social interaction is complex, but alleging a group as a whole is racist when a large majority of that group is not seems suspect.

I certainly don't consider *choke* I can't even say it, it sounds so wrong. The vast majority of white people I've known don't share those sentiments either.

C'mon, son!

I know you see the logical fail in the bolded statement in relation to your main point.

[d34d9823]

I just hate unsupported assertions on principle.

Citation needed? Seriously. Almost 400 posts and you only use the words "citation needed" twice? Both appearing in the same day and in response to the same poster?

But, since we can tell you really hate unsupported assertions, we look forward to you providing some evidence that you really do hate unsupported assertions and that your response was not what it appears: an unsupported assertion.

As it stands currently, you either a) have never come across an unsupported assertion on TLS before or b) developed this hatred the minute you saw his post or c) was prepared to let your final thoughts on his claim appear to suggest the statement he made was at best, doubtful, and at worse, inaccurate.

Right now you appear to the poster child of an unattractive conditional reasoning setup.

If A, poster is full of bs.
If B, poster is probably full of bs.
If C, poster is foolish, considering the subject matter being discussed.

I typically am against acting cute on internet forums so I'm going to give honor to your hatred by not violating your principle. Until you provide us with some support for the bolded assertion above, I pick D) Poster is inconsistent, should have honorably tilted his king when info was provided, and was just provided more support for this assertion than what he was willing to provide when he made his own.

Let's get back to playing nice and keeping it real shall we.

I get where you're coming from, but I also feel like you're making a straw man out of my comments. [citation needed] isn't an expression of disagreement, it's one of doubt. Not to mention, my second [citation needed] was complete snark.

On a logical basis, claiming that I have to have expressed an opinion previously to claim it now is fallacious on the face of it. I have many opinions that I have not expressed on this forum previously. Furthermore, an opinion needs no citation, it is its own citation.

I think I'll have to go with C above and say that I thought his assertions were plausible, but I personally hadn't ever seen the supporting data. I don't see why this is foolish, given that I'm a random guy on an internet forum and not an expert on race relations.

If you make claims like this in real life, people are going to ask for support. Implying that they should know these things already will not endear you to them. A lot of white people do not know these things already. If you want to make progress in terms of awareness and change, you should see this as an opportunity to enlighten people.

[d34d9823]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. 3S's sentiment was that, in general, society considers white people superior to black people, not that each member is expressedly racist.

What you said (bolded) is not nearly as strong as what he said. With all respect, I don't even think what you said is true. Social interaction is complex, but alleging a group as a whole is racist when a large majority of that group is not seems suspect.

I certainly don't consider *choke* I can't even say it, it sounds so wrong. The vast majority of white people I've known don't share those sentiments either.

C'mon, son!

I know you see the logical fail in the bolded statement in relation to your main point.

You ignored my crucial assumption. I admit that this is non-obvious and would make a good discussion.

[3 Stripes]

Let's try to avoid schemes to get around the TLS word censor.

[racist language redacted].

There I said it.

I don't see why TLS bans a certain word just because it's controversial but then allows posters to type in swear words and have unruly topic discussions. Furthermore, even in this day and age, we all operate in a system that perpetuates the racism/discrimination that birthed the word. It's hypocrisy in the truest sense.

And I am a black person.

I am not trying to get on your bad side or be a prick, YCrev but I really think banning a certain word while you allow topics like "Will I get laid in law school?" or allowing students to use curse words (fuck, cunt, shit) which can be just as offensive as the n-word is just contradictory and hypocritical. And I know you don't make the rules and are solely responsible for enforcing them but I still don't understand why the word [racist language redacted] has to be censored. Also, banning the word is merely a semantics effort when the society's problems and practices (the same type that birthed and empowered the word) are still in play and are what we operate under today, consciously and subconsciously.

I really believe that free speech should never be censored, especially on a forum targeted at future lawyers. And I understand that this goes both ways. But this still is America and people are entitled to say what they like.

But, out of respect for you and the TLS community, I will heed your request.

[3 Stripes]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. 3S's sentiment was that, in general, society considers white people superior to black people, not that each member is expressedly racist.

What you said (bolded) is not nearly as strong as what he said. With all respect, I don't even think what you said is true. Social interaction is complex, but alleging a group as a whole is racist when a large majority of that group is not seems suspect.

I certainly don't consider *choke* I can't even say it, it sounds so wrong. The vast majority of white people I've known don't share those sentiments either.

C'mon, son!

I know you see the logical fail in the bolded statement in relation to your main point.

You ignored my crucial assumption. I admit that this is non-obvious and would make a good discussion.

I never once alleged that that an entire race is racist. I said, if you care to look back at my posts, that the system/practices of mainstream society are composed of racist elements that cater to the dominant American population (whites) while disenfranchising URMs (blacks, Latinos, NAs, etc.). Your claim was a poor attempt at an argumentative shift. And it was a poor assumption.

This is a great discussion, though.

[d34d9823]

RockChalk, regard;ess of the variety of social stati within the black community, you are failing to understand the very basic point that, in the eyes of the dominant, white society, blacks are still considered inferior and not as worthy as their white counterparts. Rich or poor, in white America, a [racist language redacted] is still a [racist language redacted].

Don't believe me, consider the OJ case and what that taught Americans across the board.

Happy to quote. I find it hard to reconcile what you say here with

I never once alleged that that an entire race is racist

Also, thank you so much for critiquing my reasoning. I don't know what I would do without helpful people like you.

[3 Stripes]

RockChalk, regard;ess of the variety of social stati within the black community, you are failing to understand the very basic point that, in the eyes of the dominant, white society, blacks are still considered inferior and not as worthy as their white counterparts. Rich or poor, in white America, a [racist language redacted] is still a [racist language redacted].

Don't believe me, consider the OJ case and what that taught Americans across the board.

Happy to quote. I find it hard to reconcile what you say here with

I never once alleged that that an entire race is racist

Also, thank you so much for critiquing my reasoning. I don't know what I would do without helpful people like you.

If you care to take your head out of your ass and let some air into your head, you would see that my claims of racism are towards the system which society operates, which inevitably and invariably caters to a dominant population (in this case, white Americans). That is not to say that most or even half of whites in the US are racist but it is to imply that whites, regardless of their individual stances on the issue of racist, consciously and subconsciously benefit from systematic practices that discriminate against minorities.

Please don't make me out to be like an angry black man who believes all white people are racist. If you look at all my previous quotes, I never once alleged that all white people are racist.

You, my friend, need to work on your reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills.

[YCrevolution]

..