By Anderson’s “logic”, the NBA and NFL SHOULD be 80% white instead of 80% and 77% BLACK respectively.
Wait a minute. Unless I’m missing something, you’re claiming that these exemptions are evidence of racism. But when Slim makes the argument that most or all counties are predominantly white whether they got a wavier or not, the evidence is suddenly moot, and they’re still racist? Where, then, is your EVIDENCE? Saying “just because” and “it’s obvious” doesn’t cut it.
Lumber in your eye much?
So you read the minds of the policy makers?
Insult duly reported.
To the left, ANYTHING that doesn’t primarily benefit minorities is, by definition, “racist.” J. Anderson is just typical of this attitude. They believe that we somehow “owe” minorities preferential treatment in order to “make amends” for past discrimination by our ancestors.
Assuming our ancestors were guilty of it. One of mine put his life on the line in the Civil War to fight one of the more glaring discriminations.
As did several of MY ancestors. The point is, if you’re white today, many blacks ASSUME that your ancestors were guilty of keeping slaves…or at least approving of slavery and DEMAND reparations for these imagined offenses. I’ve often agreed to PAY reparations to anyone living today who was held in State-sanctioned slavery by the U.S. OR, for that matter, whose PARENTS were so held. So far, no takers.
So, I think y’all might find this interesting. I’ve been watching Milton Friedman a bit here and there the past few days. Came across this and made me think of your argument here.
Friedman says, “The most anti-negro law on the books is the minimum wage rate.” He goes on to describe how government schools serving minorities are inferior quality and promotes the voucher system as an escape. Then he’s challenged on whether minorities would fare if there hasn’t been a change of heart on race. His reply is that there hasn’t, and that in fact, laws like minimum wage are deliberately enacted by those who have not had a change of heart and who mean to harm minorities – racists enacting racist laws that harm minorities.
The relevant part of this video, which you might generally find interesting overall and relates little to this topic, begins at roughly 36.45, during the Q&A. It continues a bit on race and economics. It’s recorded in 1978.
I’m not going to get into your ongoing argument. Just thought this was interesting.
Because it has no logical bearing on a single premise of my argument.
True. And has nothing to do with my argument, and has no logical bearing on a single premise of my argument.
Inequalities in and of itself does not prove a policy is racist. What proves a policy is racist is when politicians knowingly, and without cogent justification, pursue a policy that will result in extreme and harsh inequalities against a minority group.
I agree with nearly every word of that argument. Whether the law is racist is a more complicated question. Our politics and systems are so racist from top to bottom, it’s pretty safe to call just about any of them racist.
This was your argument:
"A law that disproportionately favors the dominate racial group over the minority racial group is racist,"
And yet, other factors have to be considered.
As simply good practice, you have to defeat the argument for the policy based on its own premise, before you assume ulterior motives.
And the fact of the matter is, a non-racist could formulate this policy.
Again, I think you’re rhetorically linking this to police brutality rates, when the two are not the same.
The issue is work requirements to receive medicaid, and there is an argument to levy those.
The justification for offering waivers, is economic distress.
They’re punishing towards the poor, regardless of who the poor is. That’s the real dilemma. Elitism at the top, making top-down demands, and then they or the bureaucracies under them punishing anyone who doesn’t fit or go along with said plans.
Unpleasant design undoubtedly hurts blacks more than most, but it doesn’t target just them; it’s anyone whose homeless, trying to sleep on a bench.
True. The enthymeme of that premise is “without cogent justification.” There is no morally cogent justification for this policy giving 85% of the waivers to white people when whites only make up 50% of the population receiving the services.
This is false, per my argument above. Given there is no morally cogent justification for the inequality, the policy is racist.
It’s not morally cogent to argue that rural whites are more distressed economically than urban blacks. This is a pathetic attempt to justify a racist policy.
The counties are; there’s less jobs for them to take in said county, thus, it’s harder for them to meet the work requirement in the first place.
The point is urban blacks are living in amongst growing economies, while rural people (white or black) are not.
In part because state governments are siphoning rural tax dollars and dumping them into cities.
I tell you what, I’m tired of hearing “conservatism is racist” arguments. I’m over it.
If you think it’s racist, you lack education on actual racism and I no longer have patience to read or listen to a doggone thing from you. We have mods here that may disagree with me, but I’m ready to ban anyone who throws down a racism accusation of anything that happens in the United States. It’s bovine excrement, and people that claim it are full of it.
ALL liberals (and a few conservatives and libertarians) are full of it, DN.
I’m going to continue to call out racism in America in my posts on this board whenever I feel like it. I find your white fragility disturbing.
Would love to know if you’re keeping a straight face with that “argument.”
And I’m going to continue to ignore your bovine excrement. It’s crap. You devalue actual racism.
That’s convenient, because I would like nothing more than to never again be reminded of your existence.
It’s in the damn data, you can’t deny it, the very articles you quote states it.
The policy targets county performance, that’s it. The merit of the policy is asking under what conditions should work requirements apply.
I’m not arguing whether the policy is good or not. because I don’t know.
But racism is a stretch, when you can get here, just by going by county and a +10% unemployment rate.
That’s all it takes.
First of all, you’re calling out what you call racism, with a dearth of facts to back it up. Second, you don’t get to say whatever you “feel like” here. We have rules; they’re not new. And we’re quite prepared to enforce them. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else where they accept your spurious accusations of racism. And if you keep up the crap and the attitude, we’ll insist.