I've been following the Israel/Palestine issues over the last few weeks and basically Israels position is, if they protest by peaceful means it's not legitimate and they're ignored. If they use force they're terrorists.

It's interesting how you think just like a member of an occupying force does.

Basically the blacks should just shut up and do as you say and they'll be fine.
I mean.....lol. Good luck with that attitude in life.

Isn't one of the criticisms basically that it's going after a problem that doesn't exist? Showing that the problems do still exist seems pertinent.

This is just another way to deflect criticism. The criticism you appear to be referring to has to do with what's identified as systemic racism. Disagreeing with what is, and isn't systemic racism is met with the exact straw man you again beat here.

So you don't think there is systemic racism in the US.

The people who are advocating for CRT do.

Now what ?

https://cathy.arcdigital.media/p/the...al-race-theory

This is a pretty fair piece.
My complaint is that it gives zero attention at all to criticism of CRT that comes from the left like in the vein of Adolph Reed or Walter Benn Michaels. Treating all criticism of it as coming from the cultural right is definitely a disservice to what would otherwise be a pretty balanced piece.
And to be fair there-- McWhorter is mentioned as a liberal but liberals are on the right.

IHIV, her valuation on her home has nothing to do with her credit score, and also 'Pulling your own Credit Score' does not impact your score. She is just wrong on that.


Anyway the point being, purposeful or accidental this is just another example of how discrimination gets institutionalized in a way that removes billions of equity from a Pool (POC) and helps set them back massively.

This is not happening because they manifest it. It is happening regardless.

It sort of seems unreasonable in this case to think that racism was the cause of the undervaluation fwiw. We're talking about a 150% difference from ~110,000 up to 260k. It would be completely egregious to value a person's home that much lower on the bias on skin-color.
Given that she had bought the home for around that much in 2017, it seems like what happened is that the housing market shot up dramatically there and that these home appraisers aren't very good at their job.
I do imagine that similar things happen to white people, but it certainly does mean that the industry needs standards-check.
But I don't know how hard it is to measure square footage, look to see what other homes are going for in the area, and make other assessments based on the condition of the home. It should be a fairly objective process without much room for subjectivity.

A whole range of things culminate to make such a poor valuation outcome a reality.

Within that range, it certainly seems to indicate that hold over institutionalized biases from decades prior is still at play and trickling in, consciously or not, into how these things are viewed and ultimately valued.

It's not a deflection--it's pretty much a direct counter to that criticism. That position on this point can't really stand -any- admission systemic racism exists because it would toss that line of criticism out altogether. So it's deny deny deny Banking/property are absolutely connected to/parts of the system but I guess someone could try to argue otherwise. If the sidebar of--well they're just individual bad actors comes up it isn't really much of an argument either because the system is/has been filled with them for ages. Essentially you're just arguing that ya the system apparently has flaws

A big chunk of the 'criticism' is really just aimed at trying to stamp it out altogether period rather than admit/try to find other solutions. One of the best lines of criticism would be--accepting that the things something like crt is trying to address exist and offering alternative/better strategies--and it should kinda go w/o saying that the don't change anything ideas that created the problems in the first place are a non-starter. But when the position is--the problem crt is trying to address doesn't even exist--even admitting that amounts to a loss and we can't have that now can we? Which is why the opponents have the basic goal of ending it and doing nothing--because they would quite like to just continue unimpeded.

If you get undervalued by 10%, or 20% or something then racism should be looked at as a factor.
150% is simply gross error on behalf of the appraisers. I can't see how race could lead any professional in the real estate industry to make that sort of mistake. That's my only point there.

You can't let the uppity lower status people be a part of the solution to their own problems.

What is this....a democracy or something ?

lol imagine still being a proud conservative in 2021 and writing thousands of posts about this ****

drinks with TedCruz lol that sounds like a good time. Can we bring our own acid to spice tings up a little?

I forget did the nazis look like a ragtag group of blue-haired college kids and various other minorities etc or a monolith basically representing 1 group of people claiming their precious 'culture' was being attacked and using that as an excuse to go on offense? Maybe they can signify their allegiance by all wearing the same piece of gear like a red hat or something And then you dehumanize the enemy with terms like npc and sjws.

Where are all these lefty kkk members hiding?

I’ll Take ‘White Supremacist Hand Gestures’ for $1,000: How hundreds of “Jeopardy!” contestants talked themselves into a baseless conspiracy theory — and won’t be talked out of it.
No need to read this but the headline is fun.
I never even saw the photo before but it's not too close to my understanding of what the white supremacist gesture is save the three fingers. This part is good though.

Thank you for reaching out regarding your concern over a Jeapardy [sic] contestant flashing what you believed to be a white power hand signal,” wrote Aaron Ahlquist, of the A.D.L., according to text posted to the group by the contestant who had emailed the group. “We have reviewed the tape and it looks like he is simply holding up three fingers when they say he is a three-time champion. We do not interpret his hand signal to be indicative of any ideology. However, we are grateful to you for raising your concern, and please do not hesitate to contact us in the future should the need arise.”

The A.D.L.’s response provoked fury among former contestants who had signed the letter.

“Is anyone else feeling gaslit?” asked one two-time champion, according to the screenshots. “We saw it. We know we did. But a lot of people (including the goddamned ADL) are telling us we didn’t. That’s some classic gaslighting.”

Criticisms of CRT when it identifies a disparity, and assigns systemic racism, or racism as a primary causative reason with out much in the way of multivariate analysis to support that conclusion isn't denying systemic racism.

I'm not going to get in the back and forth again on any particular example...but one example was Cupee's farming hijack. Rejecting the hypothesis that current farming subsidies are systemically racist isn't denying the existence of systemic racism. However, the bait and switch was made in that conversation just as every other conversation about it. You point to one example when you point out it isn't really systemically racist, the strawman is created when you say "you're denying the existence of systemic racism".

Further, people on my side of the argument requires systemically racial discrimination in order for something to be systemic racism. Your side doesn't, and neither does CRT. Your side of the argument also requires an element of power in order for something to be racist, which my side rejects as well. Those are probably the key differences of opinion. If you deny or reject these principles, you're labeled as denying the existence of racism. That's not an intellectually honest on argument.

The influence of CRT has effectively redefined racism and systemic racism with a significant percentage of the population that discusses this stuff. When you disagree with these folks on intellectual level they act as if you're denying the existence of racism, rather than contend with the criticism that's actually challenging the redefinition of these terms, then pretend they're actually making a point.

You should not have brought up the Farming Subsidies again as a win for you when you got drubbed so badly.

This summary of your logic or lack thereof was such an epic fail


- gov't overtly and directly drives most POC Farmers out of business while transferring wealth and lands to White Farmers.

- This creates a massively distorted playing field and concentration of White wealth and power.

- decades later gov't under pressure to drop racist policies does

- gov't then switches to a Policy over decades of proving mass amounts of taxpayer money (subsidies) to existing Farmers based on Production, something they had already distorted to be almost all White, Large and Powerful with prior policy

- this policy is worth than doing nothing or providing no subsidies as it Institutionalizes the established power imbalance

- Not only did the prior White group who already benefited get to keep all that benefit, but they get the bulk (97%) of the taxpayer cash to compete against any new entrants trying to compete

- it is the gov'ts way of Institutionalizing and LOCKING IN the benefit to that now powerful almost all White prior group


IHIV says, ya but forget all that, this will also catch any new white farmers coming in to the market so therefore it cannot be Institutional racism.

And laughs were had by all.

Actually, this (The United States) is not a democracy. (It is a something though, kinda making the answer to your question "Yes" even if we lived in a Theocracy.)

I always suspected that Alex Trebek was a closet KKK member. He was always putting women and minorities in jeopardy.

Irrespective of what we refer to it as, would you agree that were in not for past racial discrimination and injustices blacks would be doing about as well as whites across the various socioeconomic metrics?

I would agree with that. But not necessarily the same in each vocation, but overall about the same.

For someone who goes around calling people despicable for supposedly not agreeing with mlk--you don't seem to agree with him on much He had some thoughts on black farmers fwiw

You've really been a roll lately and I'm impressed.

That is not really IHIV's argument. IHIV's argument generally ignores any actions that took place in the past as being relevant, and thus being part of Institutionalizing the racism today.

For example:

- If yesterday the gov't confiscated every single home from POC and redistributed them amongst White home owners IHIV would acknowledge that was racist.

- but if today, the gov't says, ok that was bad and we won't do that anymore but they instead said 'what we will do now and going forward is take significant tax money from all citizens and redistribute it (subsidies) based on Home Ownership.'


IHIV argues that TODAY you cannot call that Institutionalizing the racism because poor whites who were not home owners prior and who did not get a house in the redistribution are impacted along side the POC who had their homes taken.

Thus there is nothing to see here despite the fact that ongoing subsidies TODAY are what lock in and Institutionalize the prior racist actions and ensure they endure and are harder to overcome. The very thing that makes the prior racism worse and locked in, is what he argues frees them of the label.

@cupee

What don't you (RF, and wet work) understand about "ashes from the fire of racism" analogy?

I'm getting tired of this circular argument. And it's really odd because your response does exactly what I say you're doing. It's stonewalling.

Asserting something, then repeating that assertion without ever contending with criticism isn't trouncing anyone. Even I get wore out dealing with your piss poor discourse.