SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Bolded is the aswer
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why did race relations deteriorate so much in the last decade? And how do we fix it?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
BANGS
Banned
The segregation of schools is voluntary and mostly comes from "white flight" due to leftist government agenda. Don't blame racism on that shit...
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You don't really believe this part of your comment do you? Like lol man.
BANGS
Banned
What exactly is the problem? Would you want to pay to see short non-athletic people play basketball? Would you pay to see tall, fat people play compete in limbo? I don't understand what you think the problem is here with my statement...
Vicetrailia
Member
What does being Jewish have to do with anything? Being 5' tall is relevant because of course, you wouldn't make it to the NBA. Jordan Farmar is 6'2", Jewish, and played in the NBA for a while. It's not about the market, at 5' tall you don't have the capability.
Last edited by a moderator:
BANGS
Banned
The jewish thing was an obvious joke(or so I thought), obviously that is not a factor...
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That's why I was confused as to why you said that. You act as if baseball allowed Jackie Robinson in the league purely because they found out there was money in it from a new market. Clearly that's not why they let black people play.
BANGS
Banned
He was an experiment to see if such a risk at the time would be profitable, and my god was it... More black athletes were able to follow Jackie because of his success...
Vicetrailia
Member
Do yourself a favor and read up on how and why it happened, there are tons of sources. http://www.thisgreatgame.com/1947-baseball-history.html
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You're wrong bro. Just straight up. Do you want to learn or do you just like to say stuff to get a rile out of people?
BANGS
Banned
Teach me... money rules the world and I find it odd that you wouldn't think that applies in baseball...
Last edited:
MWS Natural
Member
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-anniversary-racism-charts_n_5521104.html
They don't want to learn just spout ignorant/racist bullshit. Why people like this were just banned in the past to go post on Stormfront instead.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Well with regards to baseball someone here just linked you to http://www.thisgreatgame.com/1947-baseball-history.html
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
How is "white flight" not racist?
Clockwork5
Member
Have you heard of the term "Ideological Subversion?" Because that is exactly what you have described and you are far from the only one who believes it to be the force driving our social instability.
As far as who is to blame? If it is an agenda, you are probably partially correct that the oligarchs have some play in this but I would be very surprised if there were only domestic forces at play.
Social divide can also significantly weaken international political power.
BANGS
Banned
I fail too see where money doesn't factor into any of that, but I also don't feel like diving that deep into baseball... so agree to disagree...
Because it's economics, not racism...
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
BANGS
Banned
Try checking more than one source next time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
The term has more recently been applied to other migrations by whites, from older, inner suburbs to rural areas, as well as from the US Northeast and Midwest to the milder climate in the Southeast and Southwest.[1][2][3]
It's a term that refers to white exodus in general, not just for racial reasons. I'm using it in the economic sense, white people leaving highly taxed high crime areas for greener pastures...
Last edited:
deadscreensky
Member
Checking sources is a great principle. I'll help you out, here's one of your sources you just linked:
Merriam-Webster said:
Your main problem is pretending an economic decision somehow precludes racism being a factor. When you actually look at these economic factors you're talking about there's nearly inevitably going to be some component of racism that went into it. (For an easy example, racial profiling means more arrests in less white areas, leading to "high crime rates". So you see stuff like black people prosecuted more often than white people for minor stuff like traffic violations or weed.)
We're talking about incredibly complex, interrelated systems here. No serious scholar would suggest white flight is entirely unrelated to racism.
Last edited:
They were always bad, it was just a lot easier to ignore them before the advent of social media, the internet for all, smart phones and the like. Its not like things suddenly got worse. Just look how the black community and the crack epidemic was treated compared to the opiate epidemic in generally white America.
I seems you have a fundamental misunderstand of race/prejudice and how it interacts with class.
Ethnicity, throughout human history has been used as a segregation tool for class divisions. It is one of the oldest and most commonly used types of discrimination. The exception being lineage discrimination which occurs in predominantly homogeneous populations. In this regard, white flight general describes a perceived stereotype of encroaching diversity and the association of it with things such as higher crime or lower social-economic status. While there are certainly economic factors which tie into it, the white flight can generally be perceived before the economic factors such as taxation or lower property values becomes the norm. In fact, the white flight often causes increases in taxation and lower property values in part because of the surge in properties for sell. You seem to be conflating those issues on which is the cause and which is the effect. They are circular and thus can effect each other and accelerate the chain, but you've simplified you premise down to a theorem which is not reflected in reality.
BANGS
Banned
You're literally just pushing the racism for no reason. Fact is white's leave when they get taxed extra to pay for new low income families moving into their neighborhood, regardless of race. They aren't leaving cause of the brown, they are leaving because of the green. You can't just run around shouting "REEEEEEcism!" and expect people to take you seriously...
No you are fundamentally wrong...
Here is your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
Here is the VERY FIRST sentence: White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the 1950s and 1960s, and applied to the large-scale migration of people of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions.
You are the one who explicitly ignored your own source for no factual reason. Please take the issue of research seriously. Thank you.
For good measure and further reading:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-flight
the movement of white people, especially middle-class white people,from inner-city neighborhoods undergoing racial integration to thesuburbs.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white flight
the departure of whites from places (such as urban neighborhoods or schools) increasingly or predominantly populated by minorities
appaws
Banned
The most fundamental change during my adult life, roughly since the late 1980s, is the emergence and growth of identity politics.
The left's dedication to statist economics took a hard hit with the prosperity of the 80s and 90s, and the fall of the Eastern Bloc. So they turned hard towards social issues and issues of personal identity. Racial, Sexual, Gender, Sexual Orientation based issues were seized on to create a coalition that would come to dominate the media and especially academia. They finally came to power with the election of Barack Obama, but it was quite tenuous and short-lived.
There eventually was a backlash to this. The traditional "right" tried to counter it with a narrative of color-blindness, but this has seemed ineffectual in the face of pressure from groups making (often quite true) claims of oppression. The current step is Trump's version of Civic nationalism as an alternative to leftist identity politics. I fear what will happen if it fails, because if a white majority or large plurality starts embracing what they perceive to be racial interests instead of liberty and constitutional republicanism.....that would be bad. The entire foundation of what it means to be an American could be destroyed, after 250 years, very quickly.
The left is now terrified of the monster they have created. The want to prevent whites from embracing identity politics through guilt, social pressure, doxxing, and even outright violence. They are scared as hell of the "alt-right" and lighter forms of Western chauvinism...because they know how effective those appeals can be. You can see that they fear the message of these radicals because of they dedication they have towards silencing them instead of defeating the arguments they make. No platform tactics show a lack of appealing counter-arguments. If you can win the argument with someone....you don't need to hit them with a bike lock or throw a plastic bag of piss in their face.
We desperately need a re-assertion of color-blind indivualism and ordered liberty based on the Bill of Rights. But I am not optimistic about the prospects. Most people, when faced with a powerful out group making demands on them, turn towards their in group as a means of collective support.
The left's dedication to statist economics took a hard hit with the prosperity of the 80s and 90s, and the fall of the Eastern Bloc. So they turned hard towards social issues and issues of personal identity. Racial, Sexual, Gender, Sexual Orientation based issues were seized on to create a coalition that would come to dominate the media and especially academia. They finally came to power with the election of Barack Obama, but it was quite tenuous and short-lived.
There eventually was a backlash to this. The traditional "right" tried to counter it with a narrative of color-blindness, but this has seemed ineffectual in the face of pressure from groups making (often quite true) claims of oppression. The current step is Trump's version of Civic nationalism as an alternative to leftist identity politics. I fear what will happen if it fails, because if a white majority or large plurality starts embracing what they perceive to be racial interests instead of liberty and constitutional republicanism.....that would be bad. The entire foundation of what it means to be an American could be destroyed, after 250 years, very quickly.
The left is now terrified of the monster they have created. The want to prevent whites from embracing identity politics through guilt, social pressure, doxxing, and even outright violence. They are scared as hell of the "alt-right" and lighter forms of Western chauvinism...because they know how effective those appeals can be. You can see that they fear the message of these radicals because of they dedication they have towards silencing them instead of defeating the arguments they make. No platform tactics show a lack of appealing counter-arguments. If you can win the argument with someone....you don't need to hit them with a bike lock or throw a plastic bag of piss in their face.
We desperately need a re-assertion of color-blind indivualism and ordered liberty based on the Bill of Rights. But I am not optimistic about the prospects. Most people, when faced with a powerful out group making demands on them, turn towards their in group as a means of collective support.
strange headache
Banned
Recent globalization trends have their merits by strengthening interdependent relationships between countries and building bridges between cultures, but it also came at the terrible cost of a new type of ruthless competition. The rivalry for wealthy but ever more limited resources coupled with the economic dictate of profit has lead to enormous delocalization effects. Production, services and workplaces are outsourced to countries with minimal worker costs, simply because businesses strive for maximal profit and globalization made it easy enough to do so.
Simple production jobs and tradecrafts are usually the easiest to outsource, which means that many young people see no future in these jobs while too many are flocking to academia in hopes of a steady and comfortable income. Unemployment rates are on the rise further increasing rivalry between citizens for jobs, social status and a secured livelihood. From this perspective, people don't see themselves as part of society anymore, instead fellow citizens are considered as rivals and competitors for a very limited number of desirable jobs and livelihoods.
Since humans are, by their very notion, social beings and simply because it's easier to make demands as an interest-group rather than an single individual, civil tensions and rivaling behavior develop around the lines of easily identifiable characteristics (gender, skin-tone, ethnicity, political label etc...). Moral positions, individual preferences and world views are complicated and not inherently visible or identifiable, but appearances are obvious. Hence why many people prefer to group themselves together along these superficial outward characteristics and why we see tensions rise between people of different genders, skin-colors and superficial political labels. It's partly the reason why, diversity of thought is conflated with diversity of skin-color and/or gender.
The very notion of privilege is a dangerous one because it only serves to catalyze the struggle and rivalry between these groups. If somebody is privileged, it's alright to hate him and to ostracize him from your group, further strengthening group affiliation. If you take a look at group interaction on social media, it's becoming very evident that the interactions and exchange of ideas are quickly dwindling and that these groups become more and more polarized. The notion of privilege is tightly coupled to feelings of social envy and jealousy towards anybody who might ever so slightly have it easier.
Social envy is a dangerous and hateful drug and has (among other factors of course) lead to terrible tragedy in human history:
In essence, I basically accuse the political and ideological radicalists to only increase civic tensions not because they are inherently evil but because they subconsciously consider society to be a zero-sum game. Moral crusades and social media witch-hunts are merely a pretext to the struggle for social status. People want other people fired, because they either want to occupy these positions themselves or seek to open job-opportunities for their respective in-group. It's not some big conspiracy, but merely the symptom of insecure times of economical crisis and an uncertain future. In healthier times, struggling for something, despite all odds, should not be considered a burden, but an accomplishment. These values unfortunately, are brushed aside by the narcissist and egocentric mindset fostered on social-media.
Simple production jobs and tradecrafts are usually the easiest to outsource, which means that many young people see no future in these jobs while too many are flocking to academia in hopes of a steady and comfortable income. Unemployment rates are on the rise further increasing rivalry between citizens for jobs, social status and a secured livelihood. From this perspective, people don't see themselves as part of society anymore, instead fellow citizens are considered as rivals and competitors for a very limited number of desirable jobs and livelihoods.
Since humans are, by their very notion, social beings and simply because it's easier to make demands as an interest-group rather than an single individual, civil tensions and rivaling behavior develop around the lines of easily identifiable characteristics (gender, skin-tone, ethnicity, political label etc...). Moral positions, individual preferences and world views are complicated and not inherently visible or identifiable, but appearances are obvious. Hence why many people prefer to group themselves together along these superficial outward characteristics and why we see tensions rise between people of different genders, skin-colors and superficial political labels. It's partly the reason why, diversity of thought is conflated with diversity of skin-color and/or gender.
The very notion of privilege is a dangerous one because it only serves to catalyze the struggle and rivalry between these groups. If somebody is privileged, it's alright to hate him and to ostracize him from your group, further strengthening group affiliation. If you take a look at group interaction on social media, it's becoming very evident that the interactions and exchange of ideas are quickly dwindling and that these groups become more and more polarized. The notion of privilege is tightly coupled to feelings of social envy and jealousy towards anybody who might ever so slightly have it easier.
Social envy is a dangerous and hateful drug and has (among other factors of course) lead to terrible tragedy in human history:
- the rise of totalitarian communist regimes (envy against the rich upper-class that holds the means of production)
- the atrocities of the Holocaust under a nationalist-socialist dictatorship (the privilege of Jews)
- racism, xenophobia and the general hate against immigrants (they took our jobs!)
- the increasing hate of white people and their perceived privilege (intersectionality and the progressive stack)
- misandry and misogyny (glass ceiling, radical feminism, gender inequality)
In essence, I basically accuse the political and ideological radicalists to only increase civic tensions not because they are inherently evil but because they subconsciously consider society to be a zero-sum game. Moral crusades and social media witch-hunts are merely a pretext to the struggle for social status. People want other people fired, because they either want to occupy these positions themselves or seek to open job-opportunities for their respective in-group. It's not some big conspiracy, but merely the symptom of insecure times of economical crisis and an uncertain future. In healthier times, struggling for something, despite all odds, should not be considered a burden, but an accomplishment. These values unfortunately, are brushed aside by the narcissist and egocentric mindset fostered on social-media.
Last edited:
appaws
Banned
This is one of the most outstanding posts I have ever read on a forum.
I will actually counter this by saying using "colorblind-ism" as a stance is far more ineffectual and removes the realities of self and individuals. Claiming a non-homogeneous group to be homogeneous is not a compelling argument and is anti-fact based. What is truth needs to occur is the removal of identity politics while still understanding the fundamental and individual challenges groups have in navigating modern society. The anti-platform tactics of the extreme left is highly dangerous, however the "platform doesn't exist" tactics of the extreme right is also highly dangerous. The solution isn't to become "colorblind" because is wholly unrealistic, but instead to embrace the fact that our nation is diverse, acknowledge the unique challenges communities faces, and discuss collectively paths to success for all Americans. Claiming that this is fully a monster of the left's creation is to turn a blind eye to the years of the right's dismissal and failure to strongly rebuke some of the more bigoted factions of it's demographic, or at worse to continue in will-fill ignorance to the diversity of America and the unique problems that presents.
I 100% agree with this as this is my belief as well rooted in the historical applications of things such as race and class.
However I take exception to the idea of privilege being dangerous. In the current social environment I agree with the inappropriate sentiment of what it represents, however there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is.
Privilege is the a society norm which would advantageous or at worse neutral against the general population. White privilege exists but not in the way it is often contextualized. By and large the self identification of "white" would rarely come into play in general social interactions. For instance, statistically it is unlikely for someone who is white to experience either an advantage or disadvantage due to racial skin color. They would be considered "race neutral" which promotes the idea of standing on your own credentials. PoC being minorities may question where their hiring or lack of was factored in any way through their race. The only real "privilege" granted from being born white is the society norm or baseline and by being the default carries a neutral balance in most social situations. Of course there are always exceptions, however we are talking about broader society as well.
deadscreensky
Member
Whoops:
They couldn't even figure out the race of a third of the drivers. (Which makes sense, race is not something real you can measure, but still.) It's a lousy study, and even if it was somehow accurate you'd have to prove the same thing is true of the dozens of other minor crimes that minorities are unfairly targeted for. You can't.NYT said:
And that last bit from the article you linked:
NYT said:
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Well that's just predictable NYT spin, the study is what matters...
This doesn't say anything about leaving because of minorities, this is the actual definition I was using. It happens to involve the minorities because of economics, and obviously the name "white flight" wouldn't make much sense in the cases where white people leave white neighborhoods due to economics...
This doesn't say anything about leaving because of minorities, this is the actual definition I was using. It happens to involve the minorities because of economics, and obviously the name "white flight" wouldn't make much sense in the cases where white people leave white neighborhoods due to economics...
Last edited:
Since I can see you are clearly struggling to hold a coherent point or debate, I will give you a freebie so you do not have to go through the obviously mentally painstaking and arduous task of reading and research.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/white-flight.html
"And so I found myself caught in the same debate: Did whites leave cities for racial reasons or for economic ones?
Some additional data can help. I compared the patterns of black migration into cities and white departures for the suburbs in 70 Northern and Western metropolitan areas from 1940 to 1970. I found that for every black arrival, two whites left the central city. This figure puts a precise value on what contemporaries already suspected: When black people moved in, white people moved out."
There is more to the article which cites the economic reasons, but at no point is the racial reasons erased wholly. You claim lacks any merit or evidence from actual researches on that it was strictly economic.
BANGS
Banned
What racial reasons? Correlation is not causation. You cannot say they left just because black people came in without evidence. We HAVE actual evidence of them leaving for economic reasons, we only have circumstantial evidence of racism...
Again, you're just screeching "RREEEEEEEcism" and hoping something will stick... reality doesn't work that way. And more importantly, you're screaming "instuhtushunul reeecism" as if "the institution" is a bunch of voluntary white families acting on their own...
Last edited:
You are right on one thing. Correlation is NOT causation. However we do have evidence that it is not strictly economics.
Because we evidence from actual researchers.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22077#fromrss
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/03/how-early-white-flight-drove-racial-segregation/474057/
If goes on to further explain this:
One important thing to note: when white people left their neighborhoods in response to black arrivals in this period, they didn’t go to the suburbs—because suburbs didn’t really exist until the second half of the 20th century. They went to neighborhoods pretty similar to the ones they left—at least in terms of tax bases and public spending. That means that the measurements of white flight here “may thus provide a better gauge of racial distaste than those using postwar data,” the authors write in the paper.
In essence your claims are false and not supported by research and reduces your intellectual argument to infantile babble. I made absolutely no claim of "institutional racism" which I can only presume is a reading comprehension issue. There is well documented evidence of these attempts. The research paper further goes on to show community covenant papers and documents specifying racial discrimination policies and letters and memos by occupants vacating neighborhoods where minorities have moved into. Further police records and other documentations show white resident responses to minority residents and their influx into these neighborhoods. The racism is not correlation, it is well documented fact supported by every researcher knowledgeable in the subject. Your arguments are incoherent, non-factual, and to make matters worse you will slink away and ignore all the fundamental information which has been presented you in an attempt to save face in your ignorance. Which is also well and fine. This post is for those who seek to educate themselves on the matter and seek truth against those with far less knowledge of the topic.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Folks, this is why it’s important to pay attention in history class.
Vicetrailia
Member
Would you really pay attention if you don't like the history being told to you? You'd basically need like, a whole new existence to come around.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
I like to consider myself open minded, but I also know I’m human and am guilty of irrational and unconstructive behavior like that at times. Tribalism and seeking echo chambers are part of human nature. We don’t like to be confronted with facts that are contrary to our world views and that shake up our belief systems.
This is exactly correct and ironically my opinion on why society seems to be deteriorating. We live in an age of unprecedented information and connectivity. It’s these same circumstances which have allowed use to create digital echo chambers even in the midst of differing opinions. Intellectually laziness is encouraging by discounting opposing positions as fake news. The world is now full of megaphones with fewer listeners.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Like others have already said, the racial tensions have always already existed. Social media exacerbated what has been a problem in the US since Bacon's Rebellion. Remember when people used social media to garner support for coming out? Well, that same platform is being used to support ideas that they would describe as "dated" or "old-fashioned."
None of it is going away until capitalism goes away. How are economics tied to social trends, you ask? Well, the fundamental drive of capitalism is competition. You shop somewhere because they offer better products at better prices, yes? The concept of being "the best" is rooted in American identity, from getting the best grades to going to the best schools to getting the best (highest paying) jobs, to having the best military. Anything that becomes an obstacle to becoming the best--race, class, gender, is weaponized....
None of it is going away until capitalism goes away. How are economics tied to social trends, you ask? Well, the fundamental drive of capitalism is competition. You shop somewhere because they offer better products at better prices, yes? The concept of being "the best" is rooted in American identity, from getting the best grades to going to the best schools to getting the best (highest paying) jobs, to having the best military. Anything that becomes an obstacle to becoming the best--race, class, gender, is weaponized....
I don't know if they were that great in the 90's... L.A. riots.... OJ Simpson trial... it's not like blacks and whites were sitting around singing kumbuyah back then. I think people are more tolerant of others than in the past. I see mixed children all the time. black guys with white women, white guys with black women.
Autoignition
Member
Only white people think that race relations were ever good.
Just because people of color weren't speaking up doesn't mean that you weren't hurting us.
Just because people of color weren't speaking up doesn't mean that you weren't hurting us.
Most places where minorities live are much cheaper to live in than where white people live in the US. If white people moved for economic reasons, they would likely move to where minorities live, since the cost of living is way lower pretty much ubiquitously in every minority hub in the US. As well, the initial idea of suburbs were to be a "whites-only" utopia, as many of the early suburbs explicitly banned anyone of color to live them (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown). In fact, in Levittown, PA, when the first black family moved in in 1957, the entire town erupted into a giant lynch mob and began burning crosses on the lawn and throwing rocks into the windows of the singular black family in the town.
The entire concept of white flight and suburbs are pretty much directly race-based.
You also seem to be constantly using alt-right jargon so it's pretty obvious you don't want to engage in the concept of race or race relations since you likely house controversial views on race that even our current president would not openly admit. This is my assumption though, so if you actually have any empathy for minorities let me know!
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
I think we found the disconnect...
That is a horrible assumption. For future reference, can you please quote my "alt-right jargon" so I know what you are referring to? I'm from New York, we aren't exactly known for our racist culture...
grumpyGamer
Member
It is obvious that since the internet became mainstream stupid people have more power, but i believe it is a mixture of more than that.
1 . social media (internet, tv new , etc..) all portray the differences between classes and gender and skin color,just to make profit and views, bacause only tragedy sells.
2 politics and lack of education and culture make people easy to influence and change mind, brainwashed to accept going to war, to hate other cultures just because of money and politics.
3. All this has a generational effect, it impactes the old, which impact the new generation and it creates generational hate, for said culture and people, and it is only getting worse because it is very easy to spread the hate, and people are ignorant. could spend whole day talking about this
1 . social media (internet, tv new , etc..) all portray the differences between classes and gender and skin color,just to make profit and views, bacause only tragedy sells.
2 politics and lack of education and culture make people easy to influence and change mind, brainwashed to accept going to war, to hate other cultures just because of money and politics.
3. All this has a generational effect, it impactes the old, which impact the new generation and it creates generational hate, for said culture and people, and it is only getting worse because it is very easy to spread the hate, and people are ignorant. could spend whole day talking about this
Super Mario
Banned
I don't believe anyone ever said they were good. I believe a popular consensus was a positive trend, then a complete reversal.
So what do you think of all the counter evidence to your claims?
BANGS
Banned
I haven't seen any. Like I said to the other bro, I think we found the disconnect. Your source refers to the 30s... But I think you quoted the wrong post anyway...
Last edited:
Last edited:
Some people in here are trying awfully hard to justify their racism lol. I've seen it first hand with friends,family and co worlers. The last 8 years of affirmative action elected Obummer has really angered the forgotten few aka white people that they didn't have supreme power for a change. Has nothing to do with economics, that's just what they say so they don't get booed out of the room. But we all know what they mean.
Similar threads
- Locked