The GOP is quietly crafting work requirement waivers — for white people


#21

Because time itself is not on your side here. We can control for racism, and see it isn’t the primary factor anymore.

Thomas Sowell is a black man who grew up in 1930s Harlem, yet he would argue that Harlem is worse today than it was then, especially when it comes to graduation rates of high schoolers, rates of African Americans climbing out of poverty, and their ability to build themselves into nuclear families.

You can’t blame racism for those things getting worse, because clearly we were more racist 80 years ago, than today. So something else is the driver for why those things fell.

Roughly as many unarmed black men are killed per year by cops as they are by lightening strikes each year.

You’re falling for the spotlight fallacy; individual incidents grab your attention, and that makes you think that they’re more common than they are.

Now, that doesn’t mean cops aren’t doing cruel or incompetent things, they are, and that Police Departments don’t protect bad officers, they do.

Policed Departments are insulated from adjusting bad practices, and protecting bad personnel, for the same reason you see Schools do it. They’re a state-run monopoly, captured by a Union, that itself has a captive membership.

And in these situations, it’s the poor who suffer most. In these large urban environments, thanks to a mixture of migration patterns, and decades of bad policies, the poor is disproportionately black and hispanic.


#22

So you would agree that Roe v. Wade was a racist decision, using your definition of racism.


#23

Easily, 50% of abortions in this country are performed on MINORITY women, even though minority women comprise only about 24% of the female population. There’s a REASON most Planned Parenthood “clinics” are located either IN or within walking distance of minority neighborhoods…especially in the major cities.


#24

This precisely nails the hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy of the lefts argument.

They will argue that black on black murder can not be racist because it is never motivated by hate of the victims color. What this argument does is to go back to the traditional, standard meaning of racism.

They will freely flip flop between the alternative definitions to suit their agenda.


#25

Thomas Sowell is a black man who grew up in 1930s Harlem, yet he would argue that Harlem is worse today than it was then, especially when it comes to graduation rates of high schoolers, rates of African Americans climbing out of poverty, and their ability to build themselves into nuclear families.

It’s never a good sign when you open up with an appeal to authority fallacy. Is this the part in the political forum debate where we each google statistics that support our views? There are countless studies that provide evidence of police racism and disproportionate brutality. This makes your appeal to Sowell a fallacious brand of argument from authority (appeals to authority are only inductively cogent if the overwhelming majority of experts are in agreement).

Now, that doesn’t mean cops aren’t doing cruel or incompetent things, they are, and that Police Departments don’t protect bad officers, they do.

It’s telling that you’re unwilling to concede that cops are ever doing racist things. I doubt there’s much sense in continuing to waste time trying to have a conversation with you on this issue.


#26

Except it’s not just him saying it, the statistics he brings up weren’t compiled by him.

You’ve shifted the frame here: I never denied racism occurs, I’m denying it’s primary reason Blacks are in the state there in, and we can prove that, by looking through time.

Since we are less racist today, it doesn’t make sense that these urban centers had better statistics on blacks in the past than today, unless something else came along to make their lives worse.


#27

Gee, it couldn’t have anything to do with decades of left wing progressive domination of big city governments, could it?


#28

You’ve shifted the frame here: I never denied racism occurs, I’m denying it’s primary reason Blacks are in the state there in, and we can prove that, by looking through time.

Since we are less racist today, it doesn’t make sense that these urban centers had better statistics on blacks in the past than today, unless something else came along to make their lives worse.

Part of what “came along” to make their lives worse was an explicitly racist “war on drugs” which has decimated black families and communities for decades, turning them in some cases into near war-zones.

It’s not that I disagree with your arguments about class warfare or idiotic economic policies. If anything, I don’t think you go far enough in these respects: regulation and barriers to market entry have made it extremely difficult for poor people to start up businesses, especially if they’re black (and not just because of government; plenty of studies reveal systematic racism against black people applying for business and home loans at banks).

The problem is your pathetic refusal to face the racism that exists alongside of these problems (and, in many cases, as the cause of these problems).


#29

Operation Compliance <— precisely this.

Or the stupid way we regulate Charter bus services that made this black man lose his business.

No, I denied it was factor in the issue at hand. I’m not denying racism occurs.

This started with me pointing out that the writer of that article was linking the policy to racism, when a far clearer implication was that it’s due to rewarding political loyalty.

The latter is already a problem without involving the former. Claims of racism should be saved for when its the primary factor, or you risk overexposing it.

If you keep firing that critique reflexively, people will tune you out. And here, it’s clearly a low-resolution viewpoint, as invoking it does not help indicate a driver, nor a solution to the problem.


#30

Somebody get me to the ER; I’m agreeing with Alaska Slim far too much…

I wonder how much scrutiny these alleged (since you haven’t cited a one) “studies” would stand up to…

Maybe it was the racist global warming. Or the racist water in the oceans. Or the racist rotation of the galaxy. Or…

The point is your pathetic attempt to ascribe racism to anything and everything and you refusing to see how patently absurd it is.


#31

I’ve been called a “racist” because I’ve revealed that I took in a black, 8-year-old orphan and raised him to adulthood (He’s NOW almost 58 years old…or will be this coming September) and that his wife and children call me “Pappadave” which is where my screen name comes from.


#32

Claims of racism should be saved for when its the primary factor, or you risk overexposing it.

If you keep firing that critique reflexively, people will tune you out.

Racism is destroying generations. Every day black people are being brutalized and murdered by the state, both because of on-the-ground racism among cops, and because of racist laws. Your argument that we musn’t talk about this too much because of white fragility is not compelling to me.


#33

No, because it risks becoming shrill, and easily ignored.

If you detect it everywhere when people are pretty sure it isn’t in the places your identifying, or it isn’t at the heart of the problem in question, people will just tune it out.

That’s not fragility, that’s human. Political correctness more broadly is getting the same treatment, for the same reason. Overexposure to the point of false positives and public fatigue.


#34

“White fragility?” Are you pooping me?! Unless I’m missing a LOT, it wasn’t white conservatives who started crying “microagression!”


#35

I don’t agree. It’s imperative that racism is pointed out where it exists. The point isn’t to get through to racists who don’t care about racism in the first place. The point is to expose it to people who actually do care, and are operating in good faith. In the case of creating work requirement waivers that overwhelmingly benefit white people, especially given the long history of right-wing smears about minorities and welfare, the racism is clear and an important fact.


#36

It’s human behavior; identify it everywhere, people will ignore you, because they know at least some of what you’re giving them is just false positives.

And equally, that you’re handing out levers for bad actors in race relations to pull on.

It isn’t, it’s incidental.

We know it’s incidental here, because it indentifies neither a driver, nor a solution to the problem.

This isn’t like minimum wage laws in Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa that were intentionally crafted to stop blacks from competing with white workers.

This is something of, and for political loyalty, and that’s a problem all on its own, and should be addressed on its own.


#37

BS, of course. If EVERYTHING you see constitutes to you some sort of “racism,” the very word racism ceases to have any meaning.


#38

We know it’s incidental here, because it indentifies neither a driver, nor a solution to the problem.

I disagree. It is a driver. The people crafting these policies are racists.

It also helps point towards a solution: fair, non-racist policy.


#39

That goes against what you said before; lacking a psychological component.

For it to be intentionally racist, that can’t be so.

Further; racism isn’t terribly useful to judge this by because geography points out something you can’t ignore.

COLA, or cost of living allowances, isn’t uniform across the country, because said cost differ depending on where you live.

If that was the standard by which welfare was allocated (and in some respects, it is), racial disparities would still exist, because races are disproportionaly located in different places to begin with.


#40

That goes against what you said before; lacking a psychological component.

Re-read what I said. Over and over, I said that I do think that there is a psychological component, and that the policy is explicitly racist. Not sure how you could have missed that (as I repeated this in virtually every post).

My point is that the policy is racist even without explicitly racist intent. That is: if a policy has a racist outcome, then it’s racist. This is tautological.

However, as I said, I actually do believe that the people crafting the policy are racists and that this policy is explicitly racist. The alternative, that the policy is just accidentally racist, seems extremely unlikely to me.