16 Jul 2016, 6:01 pm
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
Provided they were actually right, that's a fact, and facts can't be racist.
It's also a fact that a lot of people in the world would be less hungry if they could have a plump and juicy, roasted and well seasoned limb of some young and healthy white First-World dweller for dinner. Facts are facts.
It's also a fact that a lot of people in the world would be less hungry if they could have a plump and juicy, roasted and well seasoned limb of some young and healthy white First-World dweller for dinner. Facts are facts.
You must not be American homeowner, or you would know this to be self-evident. You would already visited a realtor, and had this discussion.
Did you even read my post before replying? I wonder why you feel the need to tell me I’d know your fact to be self-evident, since I didn’t deny it. I said something else. Perhaps you’re not interested in what I said, even though it addressed your previous retort defending racism, but I’m not interested in your fact, either, because it’s irrelevant—facts are facts and racism is racism, and you can always find a convenient fact to support policies that benefit some people by means of being unfair to other people. I’ve already given an example of such a fact, and it’s no less self-evident than yours. There’s nothing new in that, and it doesn’t make such policies any less unfair.
You said: provided they were actually right, which indicates you think such a fact may not be right.
So, yeah I read what you wrote.
I would label it an "absolute fact", because I don't know of any case in which it isn't true.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
There's no mystery. Every research shows blacks are lower in wealth, income , education.
I profoundly doubt “every research” shows every single black person to be lower in wealth, income and education than every single non-black one.
I used the plural: blacks.
That is what the research keeps reminding us": "economic gap", "income inequality", "wealth inequality", "educational inequality" between blacks and whites.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Show naturally, replacing a wealthier, higher income, more educated group with a lower one will result in less quality, less money to spend on the neighborhood.
It’s interesting how you talk about “replacing” people, like a farmer could talk about replacing livestock, as opposed to the people themselves moving out of their own free will and agency.
Of course, again, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on home buying.
You would be well aware of "white flight", where the wealthy/middle class whites in your neighborhood might suddenly leave if blacks move in, and you get caught losing much of your home investment.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I own a home in a city that is 98.7% white according to wiki, and rich whites flock to this city. I expect to make hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next 20+ years.
Congrats. Would you turn away a rich non-white would-be tenant?
I would not put myself in that position.
If a random black could rent from me, then I would never put it up for rent.
Spiderpig wrote:
I’ve tried to address your points rationally, because I think poo flinging is a big waste of time at best, but I must insist I struggle to make sense of your post as a whole and am by no means sure to have guessed its aim correctly. It can easily read, “Look, I’m rich and I made it all myself through decades of hard work, and you’re a loser with no accomplishments to speak of, so I’ve earned the right to be racist and can’t be bothered even to read your post before scolding you. You deserve to be humiliated by my reply regardless of logic”, and I certainly can’t argue with that. I was only answering the question in the title of the thread before you addressed me.
Perhaps you don't understand, because you never bought a home.
When you ever save up money to buy a home, you will make **** sure that money is protected.
I think most people are racist, it's clear when they buy a home, and subtlety tell their realtor, "no blacks in the area". Investments come first.
I don't see any evidence that cities with large black populations can increase in value, rather the opposite happens. This is not a "convenient fact" as you call it, but rather a truism that buyers need to worry about.
Going back my original point, it appears self-evident that the racists were right in that regard.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,605
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Jul 2016, 6:06 pm
16 Jul 2016, 6:10 pm
mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada
16 Jul 2016, 6:13 pm
16 Jul 2016, 6:41 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,605
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Jul 2016, 7:01 pm
16 Jul 2016, 10:38 pm
17 Jul 2016, 12:26 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
Provided they were actually right, that's a fact, and facts can't be racist.
It's also a fact that a lot of people in the world would be less hungry if they could have a plump and juicy, roasted and well seasoned limb of some young and healthy white First-World dweller for dinner. Facts are facts.
It's also a fact that a lot of people in the world would be less hungry if they could have a plump and juicy, roasted and well seasoned limb of some young and healthy white First-World dweller for dinner. Facts are facts.
You must not be American homeowner, or you would know this to be self-evident. You would already visited a realtor, and had this discussion.
Did you even read my post before replying? I wonder why you feel the need to tell me I’d know your fact to be self-evident, since I didn’t deny it. I said something else. Perhaps you’re not interested in what I said, even though it addressed your previous retort defending racism, but I’m not interested in your fact, either, because it’s irrelevant—facts are facts and racism is racism, and you can always find a convenient fact to support policies that benefit some people by means of being unfair to other people. I’ve already given an example of such a fact, and it’s no less self-evident than yours. There’s nothing new in that, and it doesn’t make such policies any less unfair.
You said: provided they were actually right, which indicates you think such a fact may not be right.
So, yeah I read what you wrote.
I would label it an "absolute fact", because I don't know of any case in which it isn't true.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
There's no mystery. Every research shows blacks are lower in wealth, income , education.
I profoundly doubt “every research” shows every single black person to be lower in wealth, income and education than every single non-black one.
I used the plural: blacks.
That is what the research keeps reminding us": "economic gap", "income inequality", "wealth inequality", "educational inequality" between blacks and whites.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Show naturally, replacing a wealthier, higher income, more educated group with a lower one will result in less quality, less money to spend on the neighborhood.
It’s interesting how you talk about “replacing” people, like a farmer could talk about replacing livestock, as opposed to the people themselves moving out of their own free will and agency.
Of course, again, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on home buying.
You would be well aware of "white flight", where the wealthy/middle class whites in your neighborhood might suddenly leave if blacks move in, and you get caught losing much of your home investment.
Spiderpig wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I own a home in a city that is 98.7% white according to wiki, and rich whites flock to this city. I expect to make hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next 20+ years.
Congrats. Would you turn away a rich non-white would-be tenant?
I would not put myself in that position.
If a random black could rent from me, then I would never put it up for rent.
Spiderpig wrote:
I’ve tried to address your points rationally, because I think poo flinging is a big waste of time at best, but I must insist I struggle to make sense of your post as a whole and am by no means sure to have guessed its aim correctly. It can easily read, “Look, I’m rich and I made it all myself through decades of hard work, and you’re a loser with no accomplishments to speak of, so I’ve earned the right to be racist and can’t be bothered even to read your post before scolding you. You deserve to be humiliated by my reply regardless of logic”, and I certainly can’t argue with that. I was only answering the question in the title of the thread before you addressed me.
Perhaps you don't understand, because you never bought a home.
When you ever save up money to buy a home, you will make **** sure that money is protected.
I think most people are racist, it's clear when they buy a home, and subtlety tell their realtor, "no blacks in the area". Investments come first.
I don't see any evidence that cities with large black populations can increase in value, rather the opposite happens. This is not a "convenient fact" as you call it, but rather a truism that buyers need to worry about.
Going back my original point, it appears self-evident that the racists were right in that regard.
I love the way people sometimes generalize: "Indians always walk in single file; I saw one doing it one time."
When we were thinking of moving from the Chicago area we also looked at property "in the South". And there was definitely "blue lining", which was theoretically illegal, but real estate agents would tell us: :Oh, you don't want to live in THAT area, and would act embarrassed, with 'well you knows" and other comments) when you asked them to explain.
But we're on our third house now, but it never entered my mind to discriminate on the basis of any racial standard.
The person that bought the house that we had bid on originally is black. I don't see this effecting our neighborhood in anything but a positive way...he improves and maintains his property, which makes him a value on our street.
Not everyone, everywhere thinks the same, or like you.
17 Jul 2016, 12:52 am
17 Jul 2016, 4:54 am
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Unfortunately, by being reprimanded for it as a youngster. I grew up in a town with a lot of racial tension, and I picked up some intolerant habits because of this. It's not something I like to admit, but it's true.
Your name has suddenly become amusing.
That was a brave post though, thank you for posting.
17 Jul 2016, 5:36 am
mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada
17 Jul 2016, 6:12 am
Drake wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Unfortunately, by being reprimanded for it as a youngster. I grew up in a town with a lot of racial tension, and I picked up some intolerant habits because of this. It's not something I like to admit, but it's true.
Your name has suddenly become amusing.
That was a brave post though, thank you for posting.
My dad told me as a kid that I had a "big mouth", because I was always shooting my mouth off in bad situations. This just sort of stuck with me, and it's been my main handle online for many years.
17 Jul 2016, 9:02 am
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
18 Jul 2016, 3:03 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
L_Holmes wrote:
I didn't have to learn. I've been racist ever since I was just a little sperm. After all, I am a white cis het male. That means, in addition to my racism, I am also transphobic, homophobic, and sexist.
I assume you're being sarcastic.
I think he's just Mormon. Diana Ross made them officially not racist didn't she? You only hear Mark of Cain from the FLDS now. I'm sure the sentiment is still fairly popular though. It hasn't had time to die out yet, but i think it will.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,605
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
18 Jul 2016, 3:20 am
OliveOilMom wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
L_Holmes wrote:
I didn't have to learn. I've been racist ever since I was just a little sperm. After all, I am a white cis het male. That means, in addition to my racism, I am also transphobic, homophobic, and sexist.
I assume you're being sarcastic.
I think he's just Mormon. Diana Ross made them officially not racist didn't she? You only hear Mark of Cain from the FLDS now. I'm sure the sentiment is still fairly popular though. It hasn't had time to die out yet, but i think it will.
Diana Ross was a Mormon?!?!
18 Jul 2016, 3:55 am
OliveOilMom wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
L_Holmes wrote:
I didn't have to learn. I've been racist ever since I was just a little sperm. After all, I am a white cis het male. That means, in addition to my racism, I am also transphobic, homophobic, and sexist.
I assume you're being sarcastic.
I think he's just Mormon. Diana Ross made them officially not racist didn't she? You only hear Mark of Cain from the FLDS now. I'm sure the sentiment is still fairly popular though. It hasn't had time to die out yet, but i think it will.
I was a Mormon for most of my childhood, but not anymore. The Mark of Cain idea is still fairly common I think, though when I was at Mormon college (BYU) they were teaching a more PC version of that in my Book of Mormon class. Basically, they were saying that the "skin of blackness", a phrase used to describe the curse on the Lamanites (very similar to the Mark of Cain), who are believed by Mormons to be the ancestors of Native Americans, is actually a metaphor. Riiiight
