Paula Deen

[Dukeanumberone]

Sander

Race is part of the reason, although socio-economic factors are the main reason (unless we start looking at incarceration rates). But the point is that historical (and to some extent modern) race relations are why people are in those circumstances in the first place.

Thats fine, I concede that, but just how many generations does it take to actually make a change for the better? At what point do they stop using that crutch and do whatever it takes to remedy their "plight".

o believe that hard work is what distinguishes the successful from the unsuccessful, you would have to believe that every poor person is lazy. When you start looking at construction workers, single mothers who work three jobs etc. that opinion is untenable.

Hey hey now, I didn't put words in your mouth, so I expect the same courtesy. When I said "too much work" it had nothing to do with menial labor and everything to do with bettering oneself in all areas in order to change their path in life.

Everyone is not created equal, but I don't see how that's particularly relevant.We were discussing racism and the fact that it still exists and affects the USA (and the world), and that ignoring that fact is not going to make it go away

Ok I'll bite, what will make it go away?

You're avoiding the issue by pretending that concerns about racism are disingenuous and just trying to appease people.

Black people in this generation have not had to deal with 1/10th of the racism that existed in the past, no one is stopping them from doing anything but themselves. Cheese and Rice the PRES is BLACK, if that can't motivate a race to do better, then nothing will.

 

[Courier]

no one is stopping them from doing anything but themselves.

With the current system in place in the US pretty much someone has to be at the bottom and those at the bottom have a much harder time being successful, regardless of how hard they work, than people born in more privileged families. Fuck, these days even most people with Bachelor's degrees in the US have a hard time finding a job. There's also a disproportionate number of blacks at the bottom due to historical racist legislation combined with low class mobility.

Also the "past racism" you're speaking of wasn't really as far back as you're probably thinking. Hell, just look at some of the stuff Reagan did just back in the '80s:


-severely curtailed the welfare system, worsening poverty for poor/working class white and black americans alike
-largely ended busing, resulting in re-segregation of schools and setting back the education of black students
-passed criminal justice legislation which resulted in an explosion in the prison population, especially those of nonviolent drug offenders, such as marijuana consumers
-illegally sold arms to iran to fund nicaraguan terrorists that were directly involved in the shipment of cocaine to the united states, much of which would go into crack cocaine during the epidemic, the profits of which one such dealer would use to launch the seminal gangsta rap group and record label
-gave a blind eye to the crack cocaine epidemic until it reached white america


How do you expect black kids growing up in the ghettos to study and do their homework when their lights get shut off because their parents couldn't pay their bills?

 

[Sander]

Thats fine, I concede that, but just how many generations does it take to actually make a change for the better? At what point do they stop using that crutch and do whatever it takes to remedy their "plight".

This implies that "they" are not already doing so. The system is set up to work against those at the bottom of the ladder. Again: the US is a relatively static society.

When your kids have to go to poorly-funded schools because that's all there is in the neighborhood, when you can't find a job because people won't give you one because of where you live or your skin color, when you're raising kids in an area with gang activity, when some of your kids see the drug trade as the only way to make money, when you and your kids are much more likely to be arrested for drug possession (despite nearly identical rates of drug use across racial groups -- The New Jim Crow is an excellent book on this entire subject) and when they're punished much more severely when they are convicted, it's pretty hard to remedy that plight as a group.

There's only so much someone can do to improve their lot in life.

Ok I'll bite, what will make it go away?

Education, communication, increased class mobility and time.

Black people in this generation have not had to deal with 1/10th of the racism that existed in the past, no one is stopping them from doing anything but themselves. Cheese and Rice the PRES is BLACK, if that can't motivate a race to do better, then nothing will.

Yes, it is much better now than it used to be. That doesn't mean that racism is not an issue anymore.

Also, Obama is not your typical black American. He didn't grow up in poor socio-economic conditions, and spent part of his youth abroad. He hence did not face many of the issues that many black Americans do face to this day. The fact that he succeeded is proof that racism is less of an issue than it used to be, but it is not proof that people just need motivation to rise above their problems. Many of those problems he never had to deal with.

Also, I find the entire statement "motivate a race to do better" troubling (indicative, maybe?). You're generalizing across an entire "race" of people, stating that the problem is that they are not motivated to do better (when the evidence actually suggests that they are simply stuck at the bottom rung of a not-so-mobile society). Effectively, you are saying that the problem with blacks as a group is that they don't care that they're poor.

Even if that were true, and there's very little evidence to suggest that it is, all of that is still a result of historical circumstances that were created (and to some extent still are created) by a society that has oppressed that group for centuries.

Think about it like this: You have a very large group that has self-perpetuating socio-economic problems in a relatively static society, and you're saying that the problem is their motivation rather than their self-perpetuating socio-economic problems.

 

[mobucks]

. . . and you're saying that the problem is their motivation rather than their self-perpetuating socio-economic problems

I'm totally using this statement to slap my know-it-all law degree sister across the face the next time she makes similar claims about some of my more poverty stricken friends I have made up here. As she rubs away the soreness, I will tell her she just got Sandered.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

When your kids have to go to poorly-funded schools because that's all there is in the neighborhood

Actually this is a falsehood, they are programs that support private schools, and children can be bused to other schools through programs like gate if they show potential. Happened to me.

when some of your kids see the drug trade as the only way to make money

Because they learn it at home, again back to rearing.

when you and your kids are much more likely to be arrested for drug possession

There is always a choice not to engage in that behavior.

Education, communication, increased class mobility and time.

Last time I looked libraries were still public and free and the internet is a vast resource, education has never been as easily accessible as it is today, all is needed is the want to learn. Per the mobility I believe we both already sided on different opinions on that, and time, well its been quite some time since the civil rights movement, how much more time do you think it will take?

That doesn't mean that racism is not an issue anymore.

Never said it wasn't, but I think we need only worry about criminal actions and governmental oversight not the hearts and minds of everyone.

Effectively, you are saying that the problem with blacks as a group is that they don't care that they're poor.

That is exactly what I am saying, I see it firsthand everyday, i don't need some Harvard report to tell me what my eyes see or who I come in to contact with on a daily basis.

Even if that were true, and there's very little evidence to suggest that it is, all of that is still a result of historical circumstances that were created (and to some extent still are created) by a society that has oppressed that group for centuries.

yep, nothing to do about it but bitch and moan, and not reform welfare and education and start work programs and job training programs as prerequisites for government assistance. Typical liberal crap.

self-perpetuating socio-economic problems.

key word SELF, no gun to head, no NAZI regime, no actual ghettos, simply choices and consequences. I personally know many who have overcome their circumstances and it is a complete disservice to them and their accomplishments to regard that as luck and not will, determination and perseverance. Keep making excuses, its easy to do with a nation you have no long-term real world experience with.

I respect the way you've conducted yourself in our conversation, and have nothing against you, we are on too many opposing viewpoints for this to go anywhere though, so I think I will bow out while it is still civil.

 

[Syphon]

yep, nothing to do about it but bitch and moan, and not reform welfare and education and start work programs and job training programs as prerequisites for government assistance. Typical liberal crap.

I hope ya'll don't freak when I tweak the conversation, but Welfare reform is desperately needed! Thats why 90% of the southern white population that I talk to while we smoke herb say that in order for the amnesty bill to work, we'd have to eliminate most of the support net (welfare). There's no way we can put another 11million on public assistance.

Plus, get rid of the immigrant tax-free bullshit law where Paki's can own a store for 7 years, never pay a cent in tax except payroll, and when it expires, give it to a paki-cousin who is now tax-free for another 7 years! Fuckin' BS!!!!

So lets do the math, a vast majority of immigrant businesses not paying tax, then go home and buy foodstamps, cash assistance, public housing, ect.. Makes me sick to my stomach how we've become some socialist country. I'll starve before food stamps.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Dukeanumberone
I think you should reread Sanders posts again, as I have the feeling youre missunderstanding him in some parts. He never said that the achievemnts by you or others who managed to to get out of their conditions, are purely based on luck. But it does play somewhat a role here and there. Afterall, if youre looking for a job, for example, someone has to give you chance at some point. There are so many factors here at play that its very difficult to say why it works for you and not for others which have been just as determined like you.

See, thing is that a normal person or any person actually, can only go so far before they lose steam. Before they HAVE to do something else to get their food from and their basic needs.

Some people, can do what ever they want, and work and try as hard as possible, but its a FACT that only a VERY SMALL PORTION of people actually achieve it to brake out of poor conditions, which proves how incredible difficuilt it is, while it actually should not be.

When your kids have to go to poorly-funded schools because that's all there is in the neighborhood

Actually this is a falsehood, they are programs that support private schools, and children can be bused to other schools through programs like gate if they show potential. Happened to me.

nice and dandy, but just a drop in the bucket, unless you can give every student in the US such a "card" to say that.

Thing is, Sander is saying the truth here, which can be even in some situations applied to Europe. While we have in Most parts of Europe a much more flexible system around education, it still is very often true that children with poor parents growing up from a lower-income background stay in such situations, because breaking out of those conditions is not easy. And just like Sander explained, it has most of the time nothing to do with the fact that those are just not determined enough.

Those programms are not used everywhere, and there are huge differences between the states how they handle the whole situation, hell its often enough different from city to city, where some actually do rather well, or at least have programms, while other cities and locations pretty much ignore the problem.

 

[TheWesDude]

i am starting to think you guys forgot about clinton and the causal factors for the 2008 crash.

one of the factors for the crash was clintons expansion of fannie mae and freddie mac to loosen restrictions and increase the amount of government backed business and personal loans for inner cities.

the idea was that the only way for inner-city communities to pull themselves out of poverty and raise their economic status was to give them opportunities to move away from gangs and drugs.

the taxpayers invested millions of dollars without much change. none of it significant. instead all that happened is that money they got seemed to have been invested not in improving their economic and personal situation through legal means, but rather by funneling that money into drugs and gangs and guns.

it was a nice idea, and the correct way to do it, but it seems like people that live in the inner cities do not really want to improve their lot. the only other thing the government can do is physically move people out of the inner city turning them into abandoned wrecks.

 

[Courier]

the idea was that the only way for inner-city communities to pull themselves out of poverty and raise their economic status was to give them opportunities to move away from gangs and drugs.

The War on Drugs did a lot more to hurt the black community than it did to help it. It's essentially just a way for the government to arrest a certain group of people disproportionately for victimless crimes and effectively circumvent the 13th amendment.

Guess that's what happens when you run prisons for profit.

[spoiler:fdd1a3d495]

[/spoiler:fdd1a3d495]

 

[Syphon]

^thats very informative. Gives me the impression that slavery is alive and well!

 

[Hassknecht]

Reminds me off this.
See, it's because the US allows you more freedom. We have less laws you can violate, so obviously more people will commit crime!
Seriously though, the system there is not in a good state right now.
This is also pretty bad.

 

[TheWesDude]

i have a problem when people say doing drugs is a victimless crime.

to make such a claim is to ignore the chain that ends with them doing the drugs.

that is something that as a more "conscious" civilization we become the more aware and the more choices we must make based on the chain.


and this leads to a topic on equality. justice and law is supposed to be blind. the problem is the people who pass those laws. and moving to focus on the "war on drugs" and prison population and such has the potential to drag this away from the original topic.



and the whole reason that the US has lost its ability to be upwardly mobile in the socio-economic measurement is due to a few issues.

in the past 100 years:
1) huge influx to the work force devaluing individual worth
2) huge tax cuts/breaks for large businesses
3) huge tax cuts/breaks for those among the top earners
4) government spending massive amounts compounded by #2 and #3 leading to overall meteoric devaluation of currency
5) exploitation of public assistance programs
6) social changes encouraging long term use/reliance on social programs and public assistance
7) social changes removing personal responsibility in favor of blaming other peoples
8) social changes discouraging education and learning and intelligence overall
9) social and economic changes encouraging easiest path to most economic gain
10) legal changes encouraging destruction of our manufacturing base and movement to service economy rather than production economy.

just a few of the many causes for what contributed to the drastic plummeting of wages/socio-economic mobility.

 

[SnapSlav]

A rather fascinating discussion born from a rather uninteresting topic. Too much to address all at once, but there were a few particulars that just alerted me, instantly.

There is no evidence that voter fraud is a problem, or that there is a "tide of fraudulent votes".

Unless I'm missing that you mean "It exists, but it isn't massive on the scope of conspiracy", I'd just have to disagree vehemently. My family keeps getting calls and letters from local and federal government thanking my grandfather for voting. My grandfather who's been dead for over a decade. It wouldn't be alarming to any of us if the votes made in his name weren't for actions and propositions that he would have vociferously objected to because the measures he "voted for" would have harmed him or people he cared deeply for. It wouldn't have alarmed us if it wasn't always from the Democratic Party, because he was a "member of the party" for many years, but wouldn't have been and would have actively resigned if he hadn't lost his mind to dementia before the Democratic Party STARTED their campaigns that he would have found so vulgar and despicable. The worst part is there's nothing we can do about this, because the vote is cast in his name, we get some pamphlets "for him" to review, and we get the "thank you for your vote" all the time, every year, and we NEVER get the same for those of us who are..... still alive.

Voter fraud IS a major issue, and it's staggering how far certain groups do go, in the United States, to swing votes in directions they want, that the actual VOTING wouldn't have favored. Using the deceased is just one tactic, but there are plenty others that have had their fair share of time under the spotlight. The scandal of Florida's absentee vote and its allegiance during the 2000 election for George W. Bush is a fantastic example, where his brother's political pull in the state was alleged to have manipulated votes to allow his brother to win the Presidential Election. The more recent changes to state laws to prohibit certain ethnic groups from casting their vote is another great example.

Voter fraud is not only very real, but it IS a big problem. It's perhaps not systemic, in that really the mainstay of decisions are made largely by the incompetent and/or ignorant masses just swaying with whatever wind the media tells them is blowing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a major issue of political corruption in The States, has been for ages, and appears to continue to be for years and years to come... It's deplorable.

i have a problem when people say doing drugs is a victimless crime.

This is a logical fallacy, although I can appreciate the idea that you believe in. Indeed, when you pay a dealer to get a fix of a drug, and you take a hit from that drug, while you are not causing any harm to anyone, you are providing economic support for a system which has led to many countless victims over the decades, and at the very least you're giving money to a dealer who (depending on your neighborhood) might use that money to buy and maintain some weapons so he can participate in a drug-related turf war, should the need arise.

However, this ignores what caused any of those supposed "links in the chain" to form in the first place. The act of administering a psychoactive chemical into one's own person is, in and of itself, STILL a victimless crime- even should they overdose, but more on that later. The whole host of events which may or may not coincide with the supply of those chemicals to their final destination are still tertiary to their consumption. Liquor is, has been, and will remain a fantastic example of this concept for a long time. It's perfectly legal in the United States to imbibe alcohol if you're over the age of 21, in all 50 States (younger, in several), and it does no harm to anyone to do so. Why? Because Alcohol is a Federally regulated product, so from the crops that grew the barley to the distilleries to the bottling to the sale in the super market to your drinking of it was all perfectly legal, so there were no booze wars inherently attached to the process.

But turn back the clock 90 years and the story is very different. During the era of Prohibition in the United States, because of the ban on alcohol, organized crime syndicates turned to the substance to bolster their revenues, and in so doing, coupled with the high taboo of the stuff, in the public, it generated violent black markets, bloody turf wars, and those same crime organizations grew to sizes and statuses far greater than where they had starter, pre-Prohibition. But that's still irrelevant to the act of consumption. Clearly, once the 18th Amendment was repealed, this ceased to be the case. Sure, drunk driving still kills thousdans, violent drunks still cause domestic disturbances, and so on and so forth, but these are still not direct results of drug administration. Drunk Driving cannot take place if the drunk doesn't drive. Domestic abuse won't happen if the inebriated don't have any inclinations towards violence. Etc etc.

But even if taking a drug causes an overdose, this is no less a victimless crime than any intentional suicide. In fact you can argue that it is more so, because suicide is premeditated, while overdose is largely accidental. While tragic, and families and those associated of the deceased may call themselves the "victims" of such tragedies, this still doesn't make it at all true.

So before you go placing an importance on linking drug use with the carnage of cartel abductions, turf war violence, and needless incarcerations, address the fact that those aren't at all intrinsically linked to the drug consumption, itself. Theoretically the exact same process could take place for any psychoactive chemicals, just as it did with alcohol following the abolishing of Prohibition, in which case all of that supposedly "linked" violence no longer exists. So once more, we are left with an act undertaken by an individual of their own free will to undergo some kind of mind-altering experience which creates no victims, no matter what high horse upon which anyone can choose to preach down low from.

------------------

Now why people raise the question of "free speech" in this topic certainly boggles my mind, but so does "separation of church and state", and many popular aberrations that have tenuous ties to federal laws. A civil liberty, after all, is merely freedom from retribution by the government. If a hot-blooded wife kills her husband because in a fit of anger he called her a "cunt", the murder is not an issue with "freedom of speech", because while he was free to say whatever he pleased to her, that civil liberty didn't protect him from his wife (one of "the people" to whom these liberties extend).

I'm not entirely sure how the conversation deviated so violently from the Deen "scandal" (though not that I mind; the contents of the various discussions were quite enjoyable! ^^) but apparently on that matter, I have the least to contribute... XD

 

[TheWesDude]

snap, the problem is people will freely ignore the whole "causal chain" when it suits their needs and yet ignore it when it poses a problem for their position.

either it is always a valid argument, or it is never a valid argument.

the whole climate change/global warming is based upon the concept of the causal chain.

the whole drug penalties being racist relies upon the causal chain.

the whole "carbon footprint" is based upon the causal chain.

vast majority of vegan arguments is based upon the causal chain.

on the other hand, arguing for gun control requires ignoring the causal chain.


the concept of the causal chain requires taking more and more factors into account than the end result. accounting for the causal chain requires an "honest" approach to account for the whole chain at every step of the way. to ignore the causal chain, and instead look at any incident in a vacuum or to relate incidents together ignoring the chains that led to the incidents is dishonest and an attempt to absolve the causal chain of responsibility.

ignoring the causal chain is to ignore the "cause and effect" relationship and to instead take the position you can have effects without causes.

i do not do business with wal-mart when i can easily find what i am looking for elsewhere, even if it takes more effort. it is not that i do not appreciate the people that work there, or that i do not enjoy their products, or their stores or other factors. what i do not agree with is how they treat their employees and their many other business practices. if i were to primarily shop at wal-mart or shop there first, i would be encouraging their business practices as money is how their management measures store performance and success of their business model.

i do not agree with it, and i accept that when i spend money there i am encouraging them. thusly i do not spend money at wal-mart. i recognize that the causal chain and the concept of cause and effect is valid. when i spend money at wal-mart, i am encouraging their practices in all factors.

you cannot absolve the drug user for the causal chain just because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[SnapSlav]

"Discomfort" doesn't enter into the equation. The so-called "Causal Chain" is just another logical misstep. If you choose to be an activist and object to perpetuate something you're opposed to, that doesn't validate your "Causal Chain" concept. I object to recycling my household's plastic, because it perpetuates a myth of recycling that has created many poor jobs that siphon money from taxes and generate no money for the tax payer and makes shoddy products that would be higher quality and cheaper to produce if they were just made from scratch AND involves more traffic resources which causes more pollution and not less AND involves many added industrial processes which further add to the needless pollution AAAND (etc etc), so I will actively turn down "free money" for helping with plastic recycling because I know that the whole process is counter-productive at best, and a scam at worst. But my refusal to accept that money for helping with that doesn't make my participation in and of itself bad. If I participate, it does directly support a process I object to, and that's why I don't support it. However that still doesn't mean that if I were to change my mind that doing so would be "bad". What it SUPPORTS is bad, not the act in and of itself.

If people are ignorant of your Causal Chain is their problem, although I don't want to come off as though I'm ambivalent towards ignorance (the fact is, I detest it completely). But Causal Chain or not, as far as Drug Use being a Victimless Crime, just as you said "it is always a valid argument, or it is never a valid argument", and in this case it falls into the "always is" category. Taking illegal drugs is, in the context of today's United States, supporting a system of crime and violence, but COMPLETELY INDIRECTLY. I can't be held responsible for the poor working conditions in a textiles manufacturing warehouse (sweat shop) because I wear Nike shoes. I'm not the cause of those, despite their nebulous ties via your "Causal Link".

You don't perpetuate or attack a certain process by addressing its end-result. You merely address its end result. You address the process by addressing the process. Legalize all narcotics, and it addresses ONE of the myriad of problems tied to drug-related violence. Several other measures can address more. But suggesting that the act of taking a hit is at all related to, and perpetuating street violence, is absurd. Yes, one leads to another, but effects don't beget their causes, if they can be caused by something else. As I made clear with my Prohibition example, it's perfectly possible to maintain the same popular habit without inducing massive waves of crime violence. If the same end result can be achieved by a COMPLETELY different series of events/processes, and that shift in methodology is devoid of anything objectionable, then we're still left with an end result that was never bad to begin with.

 

[TheWesDude]

im pretty sure if a sizeable portion of Nike's business stopped buying their shoes because they are made in a third world country and/or sweat shop to lower their prices and raise profits...

we cannot control the process as consumers other than by choosing not to buy the final product. the end result is really all we have control over.

by purchasing Nike shoes, you are tacitly and indirectly approving of how the shoe itself got to you. or else directly approving. at minimum indirectly and tacitly approving.

 

[Ninjerk]

I find the victim complex you see on the right endlessly fascinating. You live in a society that is majority Christian, majority white and probably the most positive place for Jewish people to live in the entire world with the exception of (probably) Israel. Those groups aren't the ones being oppressed.

I would say more positive than Israel given who their neighbors are.

Also, I would say the "victim complex" is noticeably less vocal (or recognized?) when it comes to WASPy types. Now the media buzz is increasingly focusing on homosexual (duh) and transgender issues. God forbid you read anything besides the news where the odds of hearing or reading the terms "patriarchy" and "white male privilege" increase astronomically.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Have we mentioned that Paula Deen is a big lib and an outspoken Obama supporter?

Okay, carry on.