White Lives Matter Rally Saturday Oct. 28 Shelbyville Tn

[brycejones]

This is as wrong as when people here claim that, "every racist voted for Trump". Plenty voted for Hillary.

I mean... unless you consider Weinstein a good guy and not deplorable? Then again, going by how he is being treated, many lefties think he is a good guy.

Weinstein sucks and he is being hammered since the story broke. Which again was broken by the so called leftist media.

But hey whatever don't let reality get in the way of your BS.

 

[Paratus]

You sound like Billary basically calling half of the US "deplorables" just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to vote.

If you really want to pull your head out of your ass and win something, you wouldn't ignore what is ~70% of this nation. Or you can keep losing, your choice /shrug. Again, I say this as someone that DID do the good deed, and I DID vote for the lesser of two evils - even though it went against my overall political views as a conservative libertarian.

I mean at the end of the day, anyone that thinks Whites aren't entitled to days about their race - but others are allowed to and are praised is probably THE de facto of why we are in this situation. You can cry and try to reason about all the 'privileges' that 'minorities' don't have (except Asians, don't mention asians because it completely defies every single argument you could possibly make with the term 'minority' ). But guess who still has the largest group of poor people? Whites. And you want to throw them under the bus and say they don't deserve help but other groups can have days, weeks, organizations, lobbying etc? I'm not here to say what's right or what should necessarily be done - I'm simply telling you why you lost. You can choose to keep losing, it's honestly up to you.

So I'm going to mention Asians.

Average Wealth of Asian Americans compared to white Americans

Median Net Worth of African Americans and Hispanic Americans vs White Americans

Now these obviously aren't exactly the same stat but they were what I could find easily.

So I think your argument about Asians is since they do basically as well or better than whites then there is no systematic racism in this country by the majority white population.

(If I'm mis-stating your position feel free to correct me.)

Personally I don't think the evidence shows that. All non-white races are not the same, and did not come from the same historical circumstances. All white areas of the country are not equally non-racist/racist either.

Geographically you have:

2/3 of Asian Americans living in the West or Northeast and under representation in the south and Midwest.

African Americans are much more likely to live in the South and then the Midwest.

While the bulk of the Hispanic population lives in the South or West.

Historically these distributions make sense.

• The Hispanic American population migrated to the South and West overland from Mexico
• The African American population was forcibly shipped to the South
• The Asian American population came by boat to the West Coast.

Not all areas in this country are equal when it comes to upward mobility:

The former confederate states show the least amount of upward mobility.

Now the wealth and income of the parents is one of the best predictors of a child's eventual income and wealth. When I look
at this as a whole I see this:

• Historical portions of the Asian American population had to have enough wealth (of some sort) to make the cross ocean trip to America. Once here they settled in areas that allowed relative upward mobility and the accumulation of wealth. This gives their progeny a leg up to repeat the cycle.
• Much of the current and Historical Hispanic American population came here with very little and settled in areas with less upward mobility and reduced accumulation of wealth negatively impacting future generations upward mobility.
• Finally the a large portion of the historical African American community were stripped of all wealth and allowed no income for generations, (think of slavery in part as a 100% tax on labor). Their future generations had limited wealth building and live in the worst areas for upward mobility.

Americans who are Asians are not Hispanic nor African, nor White. The differences of each population and treatment of, lead to differences on average of outcomes for those populations.

Now you said you lean libertarian. It seems to me the Souths treatment of African Americans makes a a powerful libertarian arguement for limiting the scope of government to prevent it from taking 100% of your labor and preventing a population from accumulating wealth to benefit another. The impacts of which last for generations.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bullshit, I doubt even you believe that.
Working class lower middle earners (rank and file) who had seen less disposable income for many years due to inflation and increasing health care payments hired Trump. In other words, moderate Democrats, or evidently deplorables in your world.

And they voted for moar trickledown, the economic model that's been beating them down for decades. It was, in truth, insecure upper middle earners who went for Trump, anyway. He bamboozled them entirely. At least the deplorables knew what they were voting for while the rest just had stars in their eyes. They still do. Killing the ACA won't benefit them. Tax cuts for the mega rich won't, either, nor will muslim bans, the fucking wall or any of it. They've been yelling at the clouds for years & now Trump is their voice.

 

[IronWing]

I have to dispute your take on Asian immigration to the U.S. Many Chinese came as "indentured servants" (slaves) to work in the U.S. with their wages flowing back to their masters in China.

 

[Jhhnn]

You can't confuse 'em with facts, Paratus. They can't reason their way out of something they didn't reason their way into. Their heads don't work that way.

I'm confident, however, that Trump & the Repubs will beat some sense into some of them.

 

[Paratus]

I have to dispute your take on Asian immigration to the U.S. Many Chinese came as "indentured servants" (slaves) to work in the U.S. with their wages flowing back to their masters in China.

Fair enough. I was trying to allude to that fact by stating "(of some sort)" meaning their labor but the post was already way longer than I intended.

I think (significant) portions of immigrants have been used in one way or another through out history.

You can't confuse 'em with facts, Paratus. They can't reason their way out of something they didn't reason their way into. Their heads don't work that way.

I'm confident, however, that Trump & the Repubs will beat some sense into some of them.

That's pretty true.

Although while many on here are immune to facts, not everyone is. So it doesn't hurt to provide them every so often.

 

[jmagg]

And they voted for moar trickledown, the economic model that's been beating them down for decades. It was, in truth, insecure upper middle earners who went for Trump, anyway. He bamboozled them entirely. At least the deplorables knew what they were voting for while the rest just had stars in their eyes. They still do. Killing the ACA won't benefit them. Tax cuts for the mega rich won't, either, nor will muslim bans, the fucking wall or any of it. They've been yelling at the clouds for years & now Trump is their voice.

Aside from the all or nothing rhetoric in the media and even here, I believe most that voted trump did not believe all his BS, but who can you believe. I think it was for the most part, a movement to get a non politician in and hope for the best. I agree trickledown is a scam and there is no answer to healthcare beside regulating cost. Dems need new blood who will look out for the middle class as well as the poor, but not much can be done until the healthcare bonanza comes to an end.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So I'm going to mention Asians.

Average Wealth of Asian Americans compared to white Americans

Median Net Worth of African Americans and Hispanic Americans vs White Americans

Now these obviously aren't exactly the same stat but they were what I could find easily.

So I think your argument about Asians is since they do basically as well or better than whites then there is no systematic racism in this country by the majority white population.

(If I'm mis-stating your position feel free to correct me.)

Personally I don't think the evidence shows that. All non-white races are not the same, and did not come from the same historical circumstances. All white areas of the country are not equally non-racist/racist either.

Geographically you have:

2/3 of Asian Americans living in the West or Northeast and under representation in the south and Midwest.

African Americans are much more likely to live in the South and then the Midwest.

While the bulk of the Hispanic population lives in the South or West.

Historically these distributions make sense.

• The Hispanic American population migrated to the South and West overland from Mexico
• The African American population was forcibly shipped to the South
• The Asian American population came by boat to the West Coast.

Not all areas in this country are equal when it comes to upward mobility:

The former confederate states show the least amount of upward mobility.

Now the wealth and income of the parents is one of the best predictors of a child's eventual income and wealth. When I look
at this as a whole I see this:

• Historical portions of the Asian American population had to have enough wealth (of some sort) to make the cross ocean trip to America. Once here they settled in areas that allowed relative upward mobility and the accumulation of wealth. This gives their progeny a leg up to repeat the cycle.
• Much of the current and Historical Hispanic American population came here with very little and settled in areas with less upward mobility and reduced accumulation of wealth negatively impacting future generations upward mobility.
• Finally the a large portion of the historical African American community were stripped of all wealth and allowed no income for generations, (think of slavery in part as a 100% tax on labor). Their future generations had limited wealth building and live in the worst areas for upward mobility.

Americans who are Asians are not Hispanic nor African, nor White. The differences of each population and treatment of, lead to differences on average of outcomes for those populations.

Now you said you lean libertarian. It seems to me the Souths treatment of African Americans makes a a powerful libertarian arguement for limiting the scope of government to prevent it from taking 100% of your labor and preventing a population from accumulating wealth to benefit another. The impacts of which last for generations.

Where to start... First, I want to thank you for being one of the few on this forum that actually posts arguments, points, counter-points, evidence, etc... The majority just throw blankets on everything and then claim victory to themselves - So thank you.

First I wanted to make sure I understood the meaning of "systemic racism", so I did some searching. And for the most part, I really can't find an exact definition. The most I can find are liberal leaning websites that proclaim that essentially "the system is rigged" - and they pulled figures such as yourself showing Hispanics and Blacks have little accumulated monetary assets vs. Whites (and Asians) [EX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPVXdjJCkCA]. So what exactly do you mean when you say "the system"? Do you mean EVERYTHING in the US? Or do you mean certain geographical regions? Or are you saying employers in general? At the end of the day your side of the argument is looking at the output (net worth, wealth, employment, etc..) and saying "See! These outputs don't equal, therefore racism". The more sane side would ask the question is if everything is equal at the INPUT level. I can come up with a million arguments or potential reasons that whites accumulate more wealth. Another poster below brought up an exact point of one I would go with as well, because I know a number of Hispanic families that work and send their excess funds back to their family in their home country. Does that explain everything? Of course not. But blindly throwing a blanket and saying "Systemic Racism" doesn't address or identify the issues and how to solve them.

This also ties back to the simple phrase that any statistician with a high school diploma will tell you: Correlation does not equal causation. I honestly can't even tell which side you're taking here - is it systemic racism or upward mobility? Because believe it or not, upward mobility doesn't segregate. Or are you saying it's a geographical issue ? Again, geography doesn't segregate. If an area doesn't pay well for low-skilled labor, it doesn't magically pay better for Whites and Asians but not Blacks and Hispanics.If anything, I would think it's more painful in liberal areas with high cost of living.

The closest I could come up with myself to what may be deemed "systemic racism" would be school districts in which are majority Black/Hispanic that do not have as much funds as a given White district that may be nearby (and thus may not be as well educated). But why is this a racial issue? I guarantee you in rural areas where the majority are White people that are the poor population with low tax income that their school is shit too. Of course, you'll never hear about these rural folks, because they are all just trailer white trash republican idiots (amirite?) But they don't seem to go around proclaiming that it's a racial issue there of course, so why the double standard? I know many of you don't realize the number of rural white people until election year runs around - but this conversation goes back to why democrats lost, and I'm just giving advice on how to not shove their heads up their own ass and actually win something for once.

Personally, long before throwing a blanket of "systemic racism" on everything, If I had to take a stab at what causes the most difference I would heavily take the side that cultural differences is what makes up a good chunk of the differences you are stating. Second place would be their parental upbringing - if mommy/daddy grew up on SSDI then it's only natural that the kids will think that's what you are supposed to do as well - if mommy and daddy grew up doing unskilled labor, it's within reason to believe they have a higher chance of doing that in their career choices as well.

 

[Ackmed]

Can you give us some examples that indicate 'many lefties think he is a good guy'?

This wouldn't have happened for decades if they didn't. The fact is, people knew. People let it happen. He has been given praise by many lefties, toast of the town. Even as the story has came out, he has been defended. So yeah, its pretty obvious some think he is a good guy.

Funny how you have issue with that, and not with jhhnn's ludicrous claim. Looks like you don't think Weinstein is deplorable either?

I don't think he can substantiate the notion that plenty of racists voted for Hillary, either, but it's what he has to believe to maintain denial. Why would they when the alternative was the race baiter in chief?

Speaking of substantiating, care to back up your statement?

Every deplorable in America crawled out from under their rock to vote for Donald.

If every deplorable voted for Trump, then you are saying that Weinstein is not deplorable. Feel free to expand on your statement, and explain how "every" deplorable voted for Trump, and that everyone who voted Dem is a good person. Or you can just admit that your comment was wrong, and move on. My bet is that you do neither, but deflect and attack.

The problem with your logic, is that you think only white people are racists. That is incorrect. Flat our false. There are plenty of racist of other races. Trying to make the claim as some on these forums have, that every racist voted for Trump is just silly.

Weinstein sucks and he is being hammered since the story broke. Which again was broken by the so called leftist media.

But hey whatever don't let reality get in the way of your BS.

Not at all true. It was days before many people (Hillary, Obama, Late night) said a word about it. Don't pretend this would have been the case if reversed. But since he contributed heavily to them, its ok right. A certain major news group is being trashed for spiking it. It took awhile before it got traction, that is a fact. You can't look at the headlines today, but in the first few days. Another point... not posted here for a long time. Seems pretty political, and newsworthy. But the typical posters who like to post about sexual assaults, only do so when the righties do it. That is reality, you may want to have a look at it every now and again.

 

[fskimospy]

This wouldn't have happened for decades if they didn't. The fact is, people knew. People let it happen. He has been given praise by many lefties, toast of the town. Even as the story has came out, he has been defended. So yeah, its pretty obvious some think he is a good guy.

Funny how you have issue with that, and not with jhhnn's ludicrous claim. Looks like you don't think Weinstein is deplorable either?

Again, can you provide some examples? This seems pretty disconnected with reality.

 

[zinfamous]

Hillary gave us Trump.

yep, Hillary nominated and campaigned for Trump. She's the reason that 63m idiots voted for a fascist human fuckstain.

 

[zinfamous]

You lost, get the fsck over it. Loser.

lol. you actually think you aren't the loser in this current reality. Good luck with that, kid.

 

[zinfamous]

You sound like Billary basically calling half of the US "deplorables" just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to vote.

If you really want to pull your head out of your ass and win something, you wouldn't ignore what is ~70% of this nation. Or you can keep losing, your choice /shrug. Again, I say this as someone that DID do the good deed, and I DID vote for the lesser of two evils - even though it went against my overall political views as a conservative libertarian.

I mean at the end of the day, anyone that thinks Whites aren't entitled to days about their race - but others are allowed to and are praised is probably THE de facto of why we are in this situation. You can cry and try to reason about all the 'privileges' that 'minorities' don't have (except Asians, don't mention asians because it completely defies every single argument you could possibly make with the term 'minority' ). But guess who still has the largest group of poor people? Whites. And you want to throw them under the bus and say they don't deserve help but other groups can have days, weeks, organizations, lobbying etc? I'm not here to say what's right or what should necessarily be done - I'm simply telling you why you lost. You can choose to keep losing, it's honestly up to you.

Hillary said a stupid thing, but she never called "half of America" deplorables. She specifically said a certain "basket" of Trump supporters within the rest of his supporters, and then within the rest of the republican party. For a "finance guy," you have a really long history here of being super shitty with numbers and context, lol.

..70% of this nation? what is 70% of this nation? Are you talking about conservatives? ...you mean the party that actually controls only ~40% of the actual vote? You aren't trying to call the known minority party and demographic in this country, the majority, are you?

lol

 

[ivwshane]

Where to start... First, I want to thank you for being one of the few on this forum that actually posts arguments, points, counter-points, evidence, etc... The majority just throw blankets on everything and then claim victory to themselves - So thank you.

First I wanted to make sure I understood the meaning of "systemic racism", so I did some searching. And for the most part, I really can't find an exact definition. The most I can find are liberal leaning websites that proclaim that essentially "the system is rigged" - and they pulled figures such as yourself showing Hispanics and Blacks have little accumulated monetary assets vs. Whites (and Asians) [EX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPVXdjJCkCA]. So what exactly do you mean when you say "the system"? Do you mean EVERYTHING in the US? Or do you mean certain geographical regions? Or are you saying employers in general? At the end of the day your side of the argument is looking at the output (net worth, wealth, employment, etc..) and saying "See! These outputs don't equal, therefore racism". The more sane side would ask the question is if everything is equal at the INPUT level. I can come up with a million arguments or potential reasons that whites accumulate more wealth. Another poster below brought up an exact point of one I would go with as well, because I know a number of Hispanic families that work and send their excess funds back to their family in their home country. Does that explain everything? Of course not. But blindly throwing a blanket and saying "Systemic Racism" doesn't address or identify the issues and how to solve them.

This also ties back to the simple phrase that any statistician with a high school diploma will tell you: Correlation does not equal causation. I honestly can't even tell which side you're taking here - is it systemic racism or upward mobility? Because believe it or not, upward mobility doesn't segregate. Or are you saying it's a geographical issue ? Again, geography doesn't segregate. If an area doesn't pay well for low-skilled labor, it doesn't magically pay better for Whites and Asians but not Blacks and Hispanics.If anything, I would think it's more painful in liberal areas with high cost of living.

The closest I could come up with myself to what may be deemed "systemic racism" would be school districts in which are majority Black/Hispanic that do not have as much funds as a given White district that may be nearby (and thus may not be as well educated). But why is this a racial issue? I guarantee you in rural areas where the majority are White people that are the poor population with low tax income that their school is shit too. Of course, you'll never hear about these rural folks, because they are all just trailer white trash republican idiots (amirite?) But they don't seem to go around proclaiming that it's a racial issue there of course, so why the double standard? I know many of you don't realize the number of rural white people until election year runs around - but this conversation goes back to why democrats lost, and I'm just giving advice on how to not shove their heads up their own ass and actually win something for once.

Personally, long before throwing a blanket of "systemic racism" on everything, If I had to take a stab at what causes the most difference I would heavily take the side that cultural differences is what makes up a good chunk of the differences you are stating. Second place would be their parental upbringing - if mommy/daddy grew up on SSDI then it's only natural that the kids will think that's what you are supposed to do as well - if mommy and daddy grew up doing unskilled labor, it's within reason to believe they have a higher chance of doing that in their career choices as well.

That was a really long post just to say you don't believe in systematic racism, especially considering how you didn't include a single fact (something you complained others as doing).

Derp on!

 

[Jhhnn]

If every deplorable voted for Trump, then you are saying that Weinstein is not deplorable. Feel free to expand on your statement, and explain how "every" deplorable voted for Trump, and that everyone who voted Dem is a good person. Or you can just admit that your comment was wrong, and move on. My bet is that you do neither, but deflect and attack.

I'll give you "every deplorable minus one." And maybe a relatively few more. Hilary's actual remarks-

http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

Go ahead- say it isn't true & give us all a laugh.

Your original mark was wrt racism, not sexism, so going on about Weinstein is shifting the goalposts.

 

[alien42]

You sound like Billary basically calling half of the US "deplorables" just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to vote.

If you really want to pull your head out of your ass and win something, you wouldn't ignore what is ~70% of this nation.

your numbers are complete BS and far from reality, somewhere between 25-30% of Americans voted for trump.

that means that over 70% of Americans aren't deplorables and you are in the minority.

 

[Starbuck1975]

• The Hispanic American population migrated to the South and West overland from Mexico
• The African American population was forcibly shipped to the South
• The Asian American population came by boat to the West Coast.

You make an interesting argument, but are also cherry picking migrations. You should expand your analysis to:

Irish immigrants, who are racially white but ethnically distinct, who migrated due to economic and other stresses, and primarily settled in the Northeast and around Chicago.

Southern European immigrants, also racially white but ethnically distinct, and also complements of genetic testing, have a far more diverse racial profile from their northern European counterparts, who similarly settled primarily in the Northeast and around Chicago.

If you talk to people whose ancestors were part of those waves, the notion of white privilege is absurd to them given the treatment they received upon arriving. For many of them, the significance of Kennedy, a Catholic, ascending to becoming President, is akin to the significance of Obama becoming President.

Puerto Rican, Cuban and other Caribbean migrants, who are distinct and different from Mexican and Central American migrants.

Also, you have Central and South American hispanics, whose lineage is more aligned to Spain and Portugal than indigenous native Americans.

Many of the hispanic migrants I mentioned similarly landed in the Northeast, particularly NY.

You also have sizeable African American communities in NY, Boston, Los Angeles, Oakland, etc. who have the benefit of access to areas with considerable upwards mobility opportunity due to progressive policies and sheer concentration of economic activity.

Statistically insignificant but worth mentioning, I've worked with well educated blacks who come from families of means from places like Nigeria and even the Bahamas who have an entirely different perspective on race and do not identify with African Americans. If anything, they can be quite critical on this topic.

I am not discounting your analysis. Your case for African Americans in southern states is compelling, yet you also find whites in those states in a similar and equivalent cycle of poverty due to lack of economic opportunity. You can even go to places like MA or CA or IL and find considerable pockets of traditional blue collar communities now trapped in a cycle of no upward mobility. The American dream is dead for them. This is also where you will find the highest concentration of passionate blue state Trump supporters.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I agree with both Paratus, damn man...what a post, and Starbuck.

I am in rural MA. My town was a farm town, the industrial revolution changed that, and outsourcing starting in the 70s changed it again. Upward mobility means you get lucky with a good opporrunity withing a 90 mile ride. theres very few stepping stones from minimum wage to middle class. Going into trade is an option, but its pretty full already.

 

[shortylickens]

Some more Very Fine People:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...sted_for_attempted_murder_in_gainesville.html

I suspect we will see violence at the White Rally on Oct 28th. I hope not. But I have to be realistic.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Very Fine People indeed:

“Us coming in and saying we’re taking over your town, we’re starting to push back, we’re starting to want to intimidate back. We want to show our teeth a little bit because, you know, we’re not to be taken lightly."

 

[zinfamous]

Very Fine People indeed:

“Us coming in and saying we’re taking over your town, we’re starting to push back, we’re starting to want to intimidate back. We want to show our teeth a little bit because, you know, we’re not to be taken lightly."

I wonder why the right is so fucking violent, and why the want to invade other people's homes?

 

[shortylickens]

I wonder why the right is so fucking violent, and why the want to invade other people's homes?

Well, thats a loaded question and lends itself to a wide variety of answers. Theres plenty of people all across the political spectrum who are violent, and plenty of people who are not.

A much better question would be something like: Why in 2017 are there more protests across America being staged by angry violent racists?
The answer to THAT question is a littler easier. Trump makes them feel comfortable expressing their hate and racism. He never denounced hate groups during his campaign. The day after he was elected there were incidents all across the damn country and it took him months to denounce those.
After the Charlottesville incident he strongly implied that Nazis and Klansmen were OK. Eventually after much prodding from his staff he was convinced to say something negative about them, but by then the damage was already done.
He made it abundantly clear he wont stand against violent hate groups nor will he encourage law enforcement to do anything about them. Theres just as many of them now as there were before, but when Obama was in office they did not feel confident about open hate and official rally's & marches and such.

 

[1sikbITCH]

I wonder why the right is so fucking violent, and why the want to invade other people's homes?

Fear.

Although I would advance the notion that most conservatives do not identify with the "radical right". However the radical right, as GWB stated, seems to be moving towards the mainstream these days.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wonder why the right is so fucking violent, and why the want to invade other people's homes?

antia! They're the devil!

 

[Triloby]

Mugshots of the arrested suspects:

Man, who woulda thunk that having godawful sunburns and male pattern baldness would be considered the peak of racial superiority? Also, what kind of shit-for-brains parents would give their children "Fears" as their last name?