BLM/White Privilege/etc

[Elonsmusk]

I agree with this analysis.

Thanks Herm.  As a Black man you have a hell of a lot more credibility to weigh in on the Black experience than any White person posting here.  Meanwhile, these same empathetic and "woke" whiteys take shots at you at every turn.  Comical. 

[Lennys Tap]

Those were the standard bearers of the Republican Party 60 years ago.
The standard bearers of the Republican Party today thank "great people" who  shout "white power" and say the citizens of a majority black city aren't "well rounded" or "working class" enough.
Things change. Most of the GOP leaders of the 50s and 60s would be condemned today as RINOs. Heck, tax-raising, amnesty-giving, government-expanding, FDR-loving Ronald Reagan wouldn't win a GOP primary for dog catcher today.

Ronald Reagan slashed taxes early in and when he "raised" them in 82-83, it only reduced what he had lowered them by by one third. Taxes were considerably lower when he left office than they were when he took office. He gave amnesty based on a promise from Democrats that they would secure our borders in return. Never happened. Ronald Reagan was the most popular Republican ever. If he was in the picture Trump would never have happened.

You're right, though, that the parties (due in great part to gerrymandering) have become more extreme. Imagine fiscally conservative JFK (I think he also voted against one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1957) trying to deal with woke socialists in the Democratic Party today. More recently, what would Bill Clinton's chances look like today.

[Pakuni]

This is the type of response people make when they cannot factually argue against the stated position.

Thanks for once again illustrating your ignorance.

Pretty sure Fluffy can pick apart your argument because it's been done so many times before. It's just not worth anyone's time anymore.

[21Jumpstreet]

Yes.  White people have "privilege."  As a result there are special business loan programs for women (oddly white women too) and people of color. There are also affirmative action requirements.  Nothing wrong with either of these programs, yet as an employer, when you hire a POC, you are then subject to potential litigation for wrongful termination, discrimination, etc.  Further, when the narrative gets pushed that whites are generally racist, what else is a POC going to think if terminated?

The reality is that generally people hire from within their personal network, or want to hire people who come referred.  It is just the norm that typically a person's personal network is vastly comprised of people of their own ethnicity.  Further there is just an inherent comfort people tend to have with people of their own ethnicity - it's not overt, nor is it racist - it's just a reality.  This is why if you look at Hispanic owned businesses, Black owned businesses the vast majority of their employees are Hispanic, and Black, respectively.  That doesn't make those business owners "racist."  They then are also not subject to being sued for discrimination if they terminate whitey. 

Race is a complex issue in America, yet the end of the day, liberal policy has been the rule of our cities for 60+ years, and things have only gotten worse for the Black community.  Empathy is great, yet it also can enable a victim mindset, which is a surefire formula for defeat.

Lastly, of course Black lives matter.  It is completely dishonest to extrapolate the bad judgement and potential racist underpinnings of a sliver of cops to the whole group.  Further, the BLM movement rings hollow, when they are nowhere to be found trying to solve the problem of Black on Black homicides/gang violence in the inner cities.  Best to get one's own house in order, before trying to blame the neighbors.

These are a lot of hot button, political statements, so I won't try to argue any of those with you. But, I will say one thing about your comment regarding people of color and thus being subject to litigation. It has nothing to do with the person of color, it has to do with how you treat that person. Hiring a person of color does not open you up to discrimination litigation, discriminatory behavior does. Employees are protected. A reason you might feel hiring a person of color makes it worse is because our country had to write specific laws in support of people of color in the workplace. This is to combat the system that is stacked against people of color.

Finally, I would add that I disagree that empathy is a victim's mentality. It is the epitome of strength.

[Elonsmusk]

I work in Title VII and Title IX compliance. I get just as many complaints from white people and men claiming that they were fired for their race/sex as I do women and people of color. You are open to litigation no matter who you hire.

Okay, even if what you say is true, you are open to further litigation when hiring protected classes. 

Here is a list of recent Title VII litigations.  Pretty sure I don't see any whites listed as the plaintiffs.

https://www.eeoc.gov/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors

[Elonsmusk]

Pretty sure Fluffy can pick apart your argument because it's been done so many times before. It's just not worth anyone's time anymore.

No.  It hasn't.  I've provided stats, facts, data, and none of it matters to you, Fluffy, or the other woke whites. 

[21Jumpstreet]

Thanks Herm.  As a Black man you have a hell of a lot more credibility to weigh in on the Black experience than any White person posting here.  Meanwhile, these same empathetic and "woke" whiteys take shots at you at every turn.  Comical.

This is a cop out. Yes, a black man has a hell of a lot more credibility to weigh in on his black experience. But, to dismiss the role a white person has in the black experience is just a way to not have to deal with it. I get it, discussing race is tough, we don't want to screw it up, it's not our fight, how can we possibly talk about the black experience. But, to ignore or dismiss the discussion because you are white just perpetuates the system in place. That is what has been happening all over our country for centuries.

[The Sultan]

This is the type of response people make when they cannot factually argue against the stated position.

Thanks for once again illustrating your ignorance.

I have attempted to factually address your points in the past.  You have chosen to ignore it and continue to spout your....interesting....views.

So I am mocking you instead.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Imagine fiscally conservative JFK (I think he also voted against one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1957) trying to deal with woke socialists in the Democratic Party today.

Do you think Republicans today are fiscal conservatives?

[Pakuni]

Ronald Reagan slashed taxes early in and when he "raised" them in 82-83, it only reduced what he had lowered them by by one third. Taxes were considerably lower when he left office than they were when he took office. He gave amnesty based on a promise from Democrats that they would secure our borders in return. Never happened. Ronald Reagan was the most popular Republican ever. If he was in the picture Trump would never have happened.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it doesn't change anything I wrote. A candidate with a record similar to that of Reagan would stand zero chance of becoming a standard bearer for today's GOP and would be lambasted by conservative pols and conservative media as a RINO (see: Romney, Mitt).

You're right, though, that the parties (due in great part to gerrymandering) have become more extreme. Imagine fiscally conservative JFK (I think he also voted against one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1957) trying to deal with woke socialists in the Democratic Party today. More recently, what would Bill Clinton's chances look like today.

Clinton and JFK would succeed in today's Democratic Party, just as his Hillary and Biden have succeeded. For all the talk of socialism and the far left takeover, what exactly has a far left/socialist  candidate won on the national stage? Biden entered the race late and bumbled his way through the early months and still crushed Sanders and Warren combined by more than 2-to-1. In truth, despite a huge head start, Bernie won fewer states and secured fewer delegates this year than in 2016.
The facts don't align with the claim.

[Elonsmusk]

I have attempted to factually address your points in the past.  You have chosen to ignore it and continue to spout your....interesting....views.

So I am mocking you instead.

No you haven't.  And quite frankly, being mocked by a lightweight like you is laughable.

[Pakuni]

Thanks Herm.  As a Black man you have a hell of a lot more credibility to weigh in on the Black experience than any White person posting here.  Meanwhile, these same empathetic and "woke" whiteys take shots at you at every turn.  Comical.

There's a sucker born every day.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes.  White people have "privilege."  As a result there are special business loan programs for women (oddly white women too) and people of color. There are also affirmative action requirements.  Nothing wrong with either of these programs, yet as an employer, when you hire a POC, you are then subject to potential litigation for wrongful termination, discrimination, etc.  Further, when the narrative gets pushed that whites are generally racist, what else is a POC going to think if terminated?

The reality is that generally people hire from within their personal network, or want to hire people who come referred.  It is just the norm that typically a person's personal network is vastly comprised of people of their own ethnicity.  Further there is just an inherent comfort people tend to have with people of their own ethnicity - it's not overt, nor is it racist - it's just a reality.  This is why if you look at Hispanic owned businesses, Black owned businesses the vast majority of their employees are Hispanic, and Black, respectively.  That doesn't make those business owners "racist."  They then are also not subject to being sued for discrimination if they terminate whitey. 

Race is a complex issue in America, yet the end of the day, liberal policy has been the rule of our cities for 60+ years, and things have only gotten worse for the Black community.  Empathy is great, yet it also can enable a victim mindset, which is a surefire formula for defeat.

Lastly, of course Black lives matter.  It is completely dishonest to extrapolate the bad judgement and potential racist underpinnings of a sliver of cops to the whole group.  Further, the BLM movement rings hollow, when they are nowhere to be found trying to solve the problem of Black on Black homicides/gang violence in the inner cities. Best to get one's own house in order, before trying to blame the neighbors.

You're attempting to lecture a business owner who has had to hire and fire people of every race.  We've been sued for wrongful termination exactly zero times.  And we hover around 50% of our employees identifying as minorities. 

What is your obsession with the 'other'?  Now its every Black person's responsibility to stop Black on Black violence?  How do you propose they do this?  Ask nicely?

Dude, you're a segregationist caricature.  Everything I bolded has racist underpinnings.

Maybe YOU should get your own house in order before lecturing.  You know, something YOU can control.

[Hards Alumni]

How is that confusing? If I am privileged for being white, then white must be better/superior than being non-white as I am granted special rights, advantages, or immunities granted to me for just being white.

Because your equivocating them.  Superiority implies being above someone.  Having privilege doesn't mean you're better, just that you enjoy benefits that others do not.

Do you think someone who is inferior can have privileges that someone superior cannot?

[wadesworld]

Yes.  White people have "privilege."  As a result there are special business loan programs for women (oddly white women too) and people of color. There are also affirmative action requirements.  Nothing wrong with either of these programs, yet as an employer, when you hire a POC, you are then subject to potential litigation for wrongful termination, discrimination, etc.  Further, when the narrative gets pushed that whites are generally racist, what else is a POC going to think if terminated?

The reality is that generally people hire from within their personal network, or want to hire people who come referred.  It is just the norm that typically a person's personal network is vastly comprised of people of their own ethnicity.  Further there is just an inherent comfort people tend to have with people of their own ethnicity - it's not overt, nor is it racist - it's just a reality.  This is why if you look at Hispanic owned businesses, Black owned businesses the vast majority of their employees are Hispanic, and Black, respectively.  That doesn't make those business owners "racist."  They then are also not subject to being sued for discrimination if they terminate whitey. 

Race is a complex issue in America, yet the end of the day, liberal policy has been the rule of our cities for 60+ years, and things have only gotten worse for the Black community.  Empathy is great, yet it also can enable a victim mindset, which is a surefire formula for defeat.

Lastly, of course Black lives matter.  It is completely dishonest to extrapolate the bad judgement and potential racist underpinnings of a sliver of cops to the whole group.  Further, the BLM movement rings hollow, when they are nowhere to be found trying to solve the problem of Black on Black homicides/gang violence in the inner cities.  Best to get one's own house in order, before trying to blame the neighbors.

1) You don't understand the BLM movement, and that's on you.  Ignorance is not an excuse for stupidity.  Read up on it and maybe you'll be able to have an informed, intelligent conversation about it.
2) More "whities" kill "whities" than black people kill black people in the USA (at least in 2016.  I didn't care to spend too much time looking, and based on my quick Google search 2016 was the article I found).  Why aren't you crying about "whities" and all their problem?
3) Nobody denies murders are an issue.  The difference is that justice is typically pursued when an offender is a black civilian. When it's a "whitie" cop they walk free unless it's all caught on video from start to finish, and even then it's sometime excused.  Absolutely crazy.

Thanks Herm.  As a Black man you have a hell of a lot more credibility to weigh in on the Black experience than any White person posting here.  Meanwhile, these same empathetic and "woke" whiteys take shots at you at every turn.  Comical.

A white person calling a bunch of white people "whities."  Talk about comical.  And also believing that herman has said one word of truth on MUScoop.  Very comical.

[The Sultan]

No you haven't.  And quite frankly, being mocked by a lightweight like you is laughable.

Yeah I have.  You apparently have chosen to ignore them.  Which is fine.  You seem to be angry and victimized, and I've learned that people like that don't really want to learn.  They want to preach.  And I'm not interested in your preachings.

[reinko]

You're attempting to lecture a business owner who has had to hire and fire people of every race.  We've been sued for wrongful termination exactly zero times.  And we hover around 50% of our employees identifying as minorities. 

What is your obsession with the 'other'?  Now its every Black person's responsibility to stop Black on Black violence?  How do you propose they do this?  Ask nicely?

Dude, you're a segregationist caricature.  Everything I bolded has racist underpinnings.

Maybe YOU should get your own house in order before lecturing.  You know, something YOU can control.

Weird, this has to be Ners 15th time mentioning black on black crime, but never has brought the very pressing issue of white on white crime...because ya know what, the overwhelming # of white victims of violent crime, the assailant is DRUMROLLLLLL white...

Direct correlation of violent crime is poverty and proximity to ones home...and ya know what, poor white people who commit crimes generally live around other poor white people, poor latino people who commit crimes live in neighborhoods with high concentrations of latino people, and same goes for neighborhoods with %s of black people.

This is not hard.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it doesn't change anything I wrote. A candidate with a record similar to that of Reagan would stand zero chance of becoming a standard bearer for today's GOP and would be lambasted by conservative pols and conservative media as a RINO (see: Romney, Mitt).

Clinton and JFK would succeed in today's Democratic Party, just as his Hillary and Biden have succeeded. For all the talk of socialism and the far left takeover, what exactly has a far left/socialist  candidate won on the national stage? Biden entered the race late and bumbled his way through the early months and still crushed Sanders and Warren combined by more than 2-to-1. In truth, despite a huge head start, Bernie won fewer states and secured fewer delegates this year than in 2016.
The facts don't align with the claim.

Disagree on Reagan. Always a conservative, never a RINO - though I do agree that Trump (anything but a true conservative) has, for the time being, turned things upside down a bit.

As to the Democrats, Hillary had the support of their machine, more money than God and the blessing of an extremely popular Democratic President. She won in a photo finish against an old socialist from Vermont. This year he was even older and Warren took some of his votes, but the Ds remain close to 50% in the Bernie/Warren camp. Far more socialists than at any time in my life.k

[Galway Eagle]

Disagree on Reagan. Always a conservative, never a RINO - though I do agree that Trump (anything but a true conservative) has, for the time being, turned things upside down a bit.

Always... except for that whole period prior to 1962 when he was a democrat.

I do agree about Reagan, wasn't there but from what i gather about then vs now his first term especially would be considered RINO Now. Maybe his second would put him solidly in as a R by today's standards.

[The Sultan]

Reagan always had to deal with a Democratic House of Reps, and for his last two years, a Democratic House and Senate.  Compromising to get things done was more of a thing back then.

[Uncle Rico]

Disagree on Reagan. Always a conservative, never a RINO - though I do agree that Trump (anything but a true conservative) has, for the time being, turned things upside down a bit.

As to the Democrats, Hillary had the support of their machine, more money than God and the blessing of an extremely popular Democratic President. She won in a photo finish against an old socialist from Vermont. This year he was even older and Warren took some of his votes, but the Ds remain close to 50% in the Bernie/Warren camp. Far more socialists than at any time in my life.k

By the end of Reagan's term, many conservatives such as George Will has turned on him.  His approach to Gorbachev and the Soviet Union in particular. 

[Its DJOver]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4124634/english-tv-commentary-across-leagues-shows-racial-biasstudy-claims

Seems relevant.  No one is saying that the commentators are racists, just that privilege can come in many, sometimes covert, forms.

[Pakuni]

Disagree on Reagan. Always a conservative, never a RINO - though I do agree that Trump (anything but a true conservative) has, for the time being, turned things upside down a bit.

As to the Democrats, Hillary had the support of their machine, more money than God and the blessing of an extremely popular Democratic President. She won in a photo finish against an old socialist from Vermont. This year he was even older and Warren took some of his votes, but the Ds remain close to 50% in the Bernie/Warren camp. Far more socialists than at any time in my life.k

This got left behind in the other thread, so repeating it here...

Re: Reagan ... I'm not saying he was a RINO, I'm saying that's how he'd be treated by today's GOP, and more particularly today's conservative media. I don't see Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity embracing a Hollywood actor from California who waxes poetic about FDR, backs amnesty for illegal immigrants, supports collective bargaining for government workers and signs gun control legislation.

Curious as to what you base the bolded upon. Bernie and Warren together earned about a third as many delegates as Biden. And while you can argue that Warren took some of Sanders' votes, the same could be said for Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar taking Biden votes.
Doing the math, the moderates still won twice as many delegates as the leftists.
Compare that to the 2016 GOP race, in which Trump and Cruz won about six times as many delegates as Kasich and Rubio.
I think it's fair to say both parties have shifted further to their respective extremes. But when it comes to major offices and national races, the shift has been far more prevalent with the GOP.

[The Sultan]

This got left behind in the other thread, so repeating it here...

Re: Reagan ... I'm not saying he was a RINO, I'm saying that's how he'd be treated by today's GOP, and more particularly today's conservative media. I don't see Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity embracing a Hollywood actor from California who waxes poetic about FDR, backs amnesty for illegal immigrants, supports collective bargaining for government workers and signs gun control legislation.

Curious as to what you base the bolded upon. Bernie and Warren together earned about a third as many delegates as Biden. And while you can argue that Warren took some of Sanders' votes, the same could be said for Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar taking Biden votes.
Doing the math, the moderates still won twice as many delegates as the leftists.
Compare that to the 2016 GOP race, in which Trump and Cruz won about six times as many delegates as Kasich and Rubio.
I think it's fair to say both parties have shifted further to their respective extremes. But when it comes to major offices and national races, the shift has been far more prevalent with the GOP.

After overwhelmingly winning the popular vote in 1980, 84 and 88, Republicans have only received the plurality of the popular vote in one Presidential election since then - 2004.  They're not likely to do it this year either.  That's 32 years.  Likely seven of the last eight elections.

The Electoral College, with it's weighting toward smaller, rural states, is the system we have.  And its a good thing for the Republicans because they wouldn't have held the White House very often over the last three decades without it.

[Billy Hoyle]

Disagree on Reagan. Always a conservative, never a RINO - though I do agree that Trump (anything but a true conservative) has, for the time being, turned things upside down a bit.

As to the Democrats, Hillary had the support of their machine, more money than God and the blessing of an extremely popular Democratic President. She won in a photo finish against an old socialist from Vermont. This year he was even older and Warren took some of his votes, but the Ds remain close to 50% in the Bernie/Warren camp. Far more socialists than at any time in my life.k

dude, that's laughable.  First, Hillary did not win in a "photo finish" against Bernie. The states were Bernie was winning were open primary states, where the far left could vote despite not being members of the party. In the end, enough of them did not vote for Hillary AND voted for Trump to swing the election.  The only seats where "socialists" are successful are the beyond solid blue seats, and even then there needs to be very favorable circumstances line up to get the "socialist" to win. Watching Fox News has made you believe that AOC and her "Squad" have actual power in the party. They don't. AOC is a twitter celebrity, little more.  I called her "Congress Kardashian." She and the Justice Democrats have been rejected in contested races nationally, most recently in Kentucky. They aren't flipping seats.  AOC herself was 0 for 12 in 2018 endorsements.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/sunday-review/democratic-party-ocasio-cortez.html

The far left is louder and more active on social media but they aren't winning.

However, in the GOP you have Q supporters winning primaries.