Wendell Carter's mom says......

[Bert Higginbotha]

Not a single one. I do know some people who vote republican because they endorse the NRA. Which I find ignorant. But not a single one for the reasons you claim. This is why you are wrong when you say it is a compliment to be called a liberal. It is not.

Two uncomfortable facts:

The Republicans freed the slaves.
The Democrats started the KKK.

'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.' No one knows who said that but it sure is a fact.

 

[KyFaninNC]

So you're basically saying that black people trend towards Democrats because they want hand outs.

And if you were black, why would you vote for someone who basically thinks you're an idiot?

First part, no I think Democrats have convinced blacks they will take care of them and provide for all their needs.

Second part. Great question. Democrats actually think blacks are too stupid to get a photo ID to vote. So why do you think black vote Democrat by 90%? I don’t think blacks are stupid, I think they are allowing themselves to be used for nothing but votes.

 

[Dattier]

Wounded Warriors Project, United Way, American Humane Society, Ronald McDonald House, NRA, etc.. There are a couple more, those are the major ones I dknate to. We try and make it diverse.

I'm down with almost all of those. Thanks for sharing.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Wounded Warriors Project, United Way, American Humane Society, Ronald McDonald House, NRA, etc.. There are a couple more, those are the major ones I dknate to. We try and make it diverse.

I only donate 1% to United Way. The rest are on there own.

 

[Dattier]

Here is a decades-long study conducted by the Cato Institute to emphasize that fact...

The Cato Institute? RollLaugh
New York Times
Washington Post
The Atlantic
Brookings
Occam's Razor

The burden of academic achievement lies more with the students and the parents than with funding. But sure, let's assume any inequities in academic achievement is because of systemic racism. That's a very scientific approach, don't you think?

Weak attempt at a straw man. No assumptions on my part, certainly not covering all.

 

[Dattier]

Exactly and none of what I'm mentioning has anything to do with racism. If you can come you up with an argument that shows its racism, I'll listen.

How about the first part of my question: How do any of these statistics prove that they are responsible for holding themselves back?

The very name of one stat you cited -- black-on-black crime -- is a construct arrived at by supremacist thinking. Crimes perpetrated against people are overwhelmingly within a single race. Crimes against white people are committed more often by white people. Crimes against Latinos are committed more often by Latinos. Crimes against black people are committed more often by black people. I don't know about Asians. We never refer to "white-on-white crime," though, b/c it doesn't fit the narrative. The only time I ever see so-called "black-on-black crime" mentioned is in blaming black people for it while refusing to consider racial bias that created the environment for it. It's never about concern for the victims. It's always a comeback.

You're never going to listen if you won't first accept the subconscious nature of systemic and implicit biases.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

How about the first part of my question: How do any of these statistics prove that they are responsible for holding themselves back?

. . . . . .

You're never going to listen if you won't first accept the subconscious nature of systemic and implicit biases.

Dat;
if you refuse to complete high school, whose fault is it?
if you take great pride in making horrible grades in school, whose fault is it?
if you hang out with drug pushers, whose fault is it?
if you do not even look for work, whose fault is it?
if you get three different women pregnant and refuse to help them because you are too fvcking cool and broke, whose fault is it?
if you push drugs to get money, whose fault is it?

As a white man in rural Kentucky is it my fault that intercity kids make all the wrong decisions? Where is the systemic racism? Where is the implicit biases?

There is no subconscious nature to intercity blacks screwing up their own lives.

 

[Dattier]

Dat;
if you refuse to complete high school, whose fault is it?
if you take great pride in making horrible grades in school, whose fault is it?
if you hang out with drug pushers, whose fault is it?
if you do not even look for work, whose fault is it?
if you get three different women pregnant and refuse to help them because you are too fvcking cool and broke, whose fault is it?
if you push drugs to get money, whose fault is it?

As a white man in rural Kentucky is it my fault that intercity kids make all the wrong decisions? Where is the systemic racism? Where is the implicit biases?

There is no subconscious nature to intercity blacks screwing up their own lives.

I reject the bold as your personal spin about people you don't know.
I'd reject the rest as products of something more complicated than your sentences.

It is no individual's fault that systemic oppression exists. It predates any living person's existence. When that has been clarified so many times and you still react to the mention of systemic racism as if you are being blamed for something, you're absolutely at fault for sabotaging the conversation.

There's implicit bias in the very post where you're asking about it. See bold.

 

[KyFaninNC]

I reject the bold as your personal spin about people you don't know.
I'd reject the rest as products of something more complicated than your sentences.

It is no individual's fault that systemic oppression exists. It predates any living person's existence. When that has been clarified so many times and you still react to the mention of systemic racism as if you are being blamed for something, you're absolutely at fault for sabotaging the conversation.

There's implicit bias in the very post where you're asking about it. See bold.

You had a black president for 8 GD years. What did he do to help the situation you are blaming whites for?

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

@Dattier, black on black crime does get brought up out of context a lot. That is true. But, when the NAACP, BLM and other groups talk about being victims of genocide at the hands of white police and being incarcerated at high rates, in that context it is a legit argument. It is not the white police killing black people at ridiculous rates, it is other blacks. It is not systematic racism that forces you to break the laws (in 2018) that is a poor personal choice.

Each time these topics are discussed, I never hear any actual ideas or solutions to the problems from the lefties. It's always revolving around accepting privilege and acknowledging systemic racism.

 

[dukedevilz]

The Cato Institute? RollLaugh
New York Times
Washington Post
The Atlantic
Brookings
Occam's Razor


Weak attempt at a straw man. No assumptions on my part, certainly not covering all.

Ahh, yes, let's discredit all organizations that don't adhere to liberal ideological values and beliefs (guess I shouldn't include the study from the Heritage Foundation?). Another study conducted in the state of Michigan showed that there is really no correlation between school funding and student achievement (https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2016/s2016-02.pdf)... Some cities do better than others, but man, cities like Baltimore are not exactly instilling confidence in the public confidence. They are graduating about 60% of their students and shelling out $16,000 per student... or Camden, New Jersey, that is graduating 48% of their students and spending $23,000 per student.

Heck, I read that article from the Atlantic and it even made some of the same arguments that I did:

And in states including Minnesota, New Jersey, and Ohio, city schools regularly outspend their suburban counterparts. Even in those cases, however, achievement disparities between suburban and urban schools persist.

Which children are likely to be read to the most? Which children are most likely to have books in the home? Which are most likely to be encouraged to try sounding out words? As research indicates, parents are the key variable in all of these scenarios.

But research shows that parental practices are more influential than material resources in a child’s development.

... Back to my thoughts. When liberal organizations discuss disparities between different races, why is it that they never mention Asians? I mean Asians dominate America in the academic arena. Are Asians inherently smarter? Of course not! Is it because Asians school districts are well-funded? Pretty sure Asian school districts don't exist. Asians are a minority everywhere, much more so than Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. But you know what they have? Family Support. Concerned Parents. Expectations. I don't doubt that extra-funding can help lower-income students, but the biggest factor that will facilitate the achievement gaps has to start with the individuals and the families.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

“And Wendall Carter’s mom said, nothing you idiot...”

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

I reject the bold as your personal spin about people you don't know.
I'd reject the rest as products of something more complicated than your sentences.

It is no individual's fault that systemic oppression exists. It predates any living person's existence. When that has been clarified so many times and you still react to the mention of systemic racism as if you are being blamed for something, you're absolutely at fault for sabotaging the conversation.

There's implicit bias in the very post where you're asking about it. See bold.

Holy shit.

I am smart enough to pass a bunch of calculus, chemistry, physics et.al.; yet I am not smart enough to recognize systemic oppression or implicit bias of minorities. Wow. Just wow.

The answer is; Your implicit bias is anything you disagree with or any statement that reflects a person’s personal responsibility to be a decent and productive person. There is no systemic oppression or implicit bias in the United States that will keep a young minority kid from excelling.

He may not be able to go to Harvard and must settle for Community College and then a four-year institution, but he will not be stopped by the fictional systemic oppression or implicit bias from making a good life.

Many of us privileged whites had to work through college. That was not systemic oppression or implicit bias. If my parents had been rich they still would have forced me to work through school. That is, I suppose, white privilege as my parents demanded that I make it.

Back to my previous post: if that minority kid is a lazy ass he ain’t going to get shit out of life and will be a drain on society. It will not be because of systemic oppression or implicit bias. You are just giving them an excuse to be worthless. A privileged white kid who is a lazy ass and drops out of school early and is lazy will experience the same dreaded end and it will also not be because of white privilege. Personal responsibility should be ethnic neutral and a requirement for all.

Our society should offer equal opportunities, not guaranteed outcomes. The outcome is your personal responsibility, not society’s.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

I reject the bold as your personal spin about people you don't know.
I'd reject the rest as products of something more complicated than your sentences.

It is no individual's fault that systemic oppression exists. It predates any living person's existence. When that has been clarified so many times and you still react to the mention of systemic racism as if you are being blamed for something, you're absolutely at fault for sabotaging the conversation.

There's implicit bias in the very post where you're asking about it. See bold.

I think you're mixed up.

 

[BasketBallJunkie-UK]

I reject the bold as your personal spin about people you don't know.
I'd reject the rest as products of something more complicated than your sentences.

It is no individual's fault that systemic oppression exists. It predates any living person's existence. When that has been clarified so many times and you still react to the mention of systemic racism as if you are being blamed for something, you're absolutely at fault for sabotaging the conversation.

There's implicit bias in the very post where you're asking about it. See bold.

You're in so much denial ....

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Holy shit.

I am smart enough to pass a bunch of calculus, chemistry, physics et.al.; yet I am not smart enough to recognize systemic oppression or implicit bias of minorities. Wow. Just wow.

The answer is; Your implicit bias is anything you disagree with or any statement that reflects a person’s personal responsibility to be a decent and productive person. There is no systemic oppression or implicit bias in the United States that will keep a young minority kid from excelling.

He may not be able to go to Harvard and must settle for Community College and then a four-year institution, but he will not be stopped by the fictional systemic oppression or implicit bias from making a good life.

Many of us privileged whites had to work through college. That was not systemic oppression or implicit bias. If my parents had been rich they still would have forced me to work through school. That is, I suppose, white privilege as my parents demanded that I make it.

Back to my previous post: if that minority kid is a lazy ass he ain’t going to get shit out of life and will be a drain on society. It will not be because of systemic oppression or implicit bias. You are just giving them an excuse to be worthless. A privileged white kid who is a lazy ass and drops out of school early and is lazy will experience the same dreaded end and it will also not be because of white privilege. Personal responsibility should be ethnic neutral and a requirement for all.

Our society should offer equal opportunities, not guaranteed outcomes. The outcome is your personal responsibility, not society’s.

Just curious,but did you use an abacus in calculus?

 

[Dattier]

You had a black president for 8 GD years. What did he do to help the situation you are blaming whites for?

Laughing
One, we all had a black President for 8 years and what does it have to do w/ anything? Conservatives liked to mock liberals for worshipping Obama while they criticized him for everything -- down to wearing a tan suit -- but now you're going to pretend like you have faith in his ability to have fixed centuries-old issues in 8 years?
Two, you just responded to a post where I stated clearly I wasn't blaming white people (of whom I am one) for anything.

 

[Dattier]

I am smart enough to pass a bunch of calculus, chemistry, physics et.al.; yet I am not smart enough to recognize systemic oppression or implicit bias of minorities. Wow. Just wow.

We all have our blind spots.

The answer is; Your implicit bias is anything you disagree with-

Nope.

...or any statement that reflects a person’s personal responsibility to be a decent and productive person.

Nope.

There is no systemic oppression or implicit bias in the United States that will keep a young minority kid from excelling.

And that's strike three. Good night, bert.

 

[Dattier]

You're in so much denial ....

Easy to claim...

 

[bkingUK]

You do realize that 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act compared to only 69% of Democrats? And I know there's some "Southern Strategy" Narrative which allegedly was the GOP way of attracting the Southern Voters (and essentially both parties completely switched values). But that's hardly credible when you consider that 20 of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act remained Democrats... and the Republicans didn't hold a majority of the southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

That's a fair point and I actually didn't know it was favored towards Republicans. However, the Democratic Party underwent a shift in power in that era from away from southern conservatives. The last of the old south Democrats was Robert Byrd, a former KKK member who died in the early 2000's. Those Democrats simply don't exist any more, and if we don't agree on that, then we can't agree on facts.

In addition, The GOP was not some beacon of civil rights. This is also the era of Barry Goldwater, who was so well revered by the right, that there is still an institution in his name.

And again, as initially stated, whether it is a correct or incorrect view that the GOP has sided against black people since the Civil Rights Era, the perception still exists, which is exactly my point.

Republicans aren't helping their case any if they want to shed that perception.

In the current era, the GOP strategically embraced the evangelical vote beginning with the "Christian Coalition". This has led to the GOP embracing even more xenophobic views to placate it's base. During the Iraq War, prior to the 2004 election, the debate on the war was almost secondary to the GOP fight against gay people getting married when the GOP made the fight against Proposition 8 a national debate. This led to several Republican states passing their own "defense of marriage" acts.

In states all over the country we see backwoods Republicans trying goofy shit like putting commandments in courthouses. Never mind the fact that many people aren't Christian, that it violates separation of church and state and the fact that it's completely a symbolic gesture intended to manipulate Christian votes.

Conservatives have attempted to inject religious dogma into public education, again disregarding civil liberties, facts and science. Conservatives had a concerted in effort (although some idiot Democrats joined in) to censor the media, including: rap music, Howard Stern, violent video games, etc.

The GOP takes an aggressive stance on immigration, again reinforcing the perception of being anti-non white people. It has waged a bullshit war on drugs, which largely incarcerates black people. It opposes the rights of women to control their own bodies. The list goes on.

And the point is this, regardless of economic policy, and things like "handouts" (which conservatives love to over-exaggerate), there isn't going to be some massive shift towards the Republican Party because it by nature alienates just about everyone who isn't a white conservative Christian.

There are some good, principled, conservatives, like Christopher Hitchens, but most mainstream conservative Republicans on outlets like Fox News are just complete idiots and I really don't understand how anyone can buy into that shit at all.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

That's a fair point and I actually didn't know it was favored towards Republicans. However, the Democratic Party underwent a shift in power in that era from away from southern conservatives. The last of the old south Democrats was Robert Byrd, a former KKK member who died in the early 2000's. Those Democrats simply don't exist any more, and if we don't agree on that, then we can't agree on facts.

In addition, The GOP was not some beacon of civil rights. This is also the era of Barry Goldwater, who was so well revered by the right, that there is still an institution in his name.

And again, as initially stated, whether it is a correct or incorrect view that the GOP has sided against black people since the Civil Rights Era, the perception still exists, which is exactly my point.

Republicans aren't helping their case any if they want to shed that perception.

In the current era, the GOP strategically embraced the evangelical vote beginning with the "Christian Coalition". This has led to the GOP embracing even more xenophobic views to placate it's base. During the Iraq War, prior to the 2004 election, the debate on the war was almost secondary to the GOP fight against gay people getting married when the GOP made the fight against Proposition 8 a national debate. This led to several Republican states passing their own "defense of marriage" acts.

In states all over the country we see backwoods Republicans trying goofy shit like putting commandments in courthouses. Never mind the fact that many people aren't Christian, that it violates separation of church and state and the fact that it's completely a symbolic gesture intended to manipulate Christian votes.

Conservatives have attempted to inject religious dogma into public education, again disregarding civil liberties, facts and science. Conservatives had a concerted in effort (although some idiot Democrats joined in) to censor the media, including: rap music, Howard Stern, violent video games, etc.

The GOP takes an aggressive stance on immigration, again reinforcing the perception of being anti-non white people. It has waged a bullshit war on drugs, which largely incarcerates black people. It opposes the rights of women to control their own bodies. The list goes on.

And the point is this, regardless of economic policy, and things like "handouts" (which conservatives love to over-exaggerate), there isn't going to be some massive shift towards the Republican Party because it by nature alienates just about everyone who isn't a white conservative Christian.

There are some good, principled, conservatives, like Christopher Hitchens, but most mainstream conservative Republicans on outlets like Fox News are just complete idiots and I really don't understand how anyone can buy into that shit at all.

It is really impressive how you can go from being reasonable to spewing nonsense all in one breath. It really is.

It's a nice angle you take when you stop short of accusing by saying that it is a perception. Those things are perceived a certain way because of democrat lies. One of the most ridiculous issues you hit on is the immigration. Because a large portion of the public want safe borders and want to know who we are letting in the country, that means we want less non whites? Give me a break. Then you hit on the war on drugs. It was a Democrat that was in office for 8 years while more black people were incarcerated than under any other president. And then of coure, fox news. You lefties must watch a lot of fox news, you bring them up more than any conservative I know.

 

[Dattier]

It is really impressive how you can go from being reasonable to spewing nonsense all in one breath. It really is.

It's a nice angle you take when you stop short of accusing by saying that it is a perception. Those things are perceived a certain way because of democrat lies. One of the most ridiculous issues you hit on is the immigration. Because a large portion of the public want safe borders and want to know who we are letting in the country, that means we want less non whites? Give me a break. Then you hit on the war on drugs. It was a Democrat that was in office for 8 years while more black people were incarcerated than under any other president. And then of coure, fox news. You lefties must watch a lot of fox news, you bring them up more than any conservative I know.

I've cited President Clinton's acceleration of the War on Drugs as an example of systemic racism in this very thread (or one of the several contentious OT threads, anyway). It's not about what people consciously intend. It's about the effect. You don't have to feel guilty about it. You just need to be aware of it and work to change it. All you and other conservatives here do is fight that awareness and do nothing about it. And "work to change it" covers a lot. I'm taking a personal day off from work today and going to Raleigh to advocate with my fellow educators and NC citizens for school funding, including equity measures. Other days, I just withdraw my participation from things I recognize as problematic. It doesn't get much easier than not participating, and if you're choosing the right things to not participate in, thank you.

You're quick -- as in "immediate" and as in "without much thought" -- to paint all black Democrats as sheep, but someone offers a pretty nuanced, thoughtful, measured post about the impressions the GOP gives people who aren't down w/ the GOP, suddenly you're all indignant over how misrepresented you are. You ought to be thanking @bkingUK and reflecting on how you could change that impression. Saying everybody else is stupid seems like a pretty bad ad campaign.

 

[Dattier]

Let me guess... the REAL problem is that they think it might be b/c they were black. I mean, there was no confession that it was b/c they were black and the trooper doesn't have a history of murdering every single black person he has ever seen, so how could they ever know? So unfair! Yet another story where white people get mistreated.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Let me guess... the REAL problem is that they think it might be b/c they were black. I mean, there was no confession that it was b/c they were black and the trooper doesn't have a history of murdering every single black person he has ever seen, so how could they ever know? So unfair! Yet another story where white people get mistreated.

So a cop responded to a report of a fight between girls on the side of the highway. Saw some girls on the side of the highway and asked for ID? Oh the oppression. He asked for ID. Yup, he's a racist POS.

 

[dukedevilz]

How about the first part of my question: How do any of these statistics prove that they are responsible for holding themselves back?

The very name of one stat you cited -- black-on-black crime -- is a construct arrived at by supremacist thinking. Crimes perpetrated against people are overwhelmingly within a single race.

That's true. Crimes generally happen with people you know, which explains why the perpetrators are the same race as the victims. But blacks killing whites is more than twice the number than that of whites killing blacks. This doesn't account for the fact that there are 5-6 times as many white people in this country, which means blacks are actually killing whites at significantly higher rates.

... Also, you're nitpicking again at the "black-on-black" phrase? A construct arrived at by supremacist thinking? Does it bother you when Ray Lewis and Deion Sanders mention it? Does it bother you when I say that I'm a man? I hear that's a social construct, too.

 

[SNU0821]

I've cited President Clinton's acceleration of the War on Drugs as an example of systemic racism in this very thread (or one of the several contentious OT threads, anyway). It's not about what people consciously intend. It's about the effect. You don't have to feel guilty about it. You just need to be aware of it and work to change it. All you and other conservatives here do is fight that awareness and do nothing about it. And "work to change it" covers a lot. I'm taking a personal day off from work today and going to Raleigh to advocate with my fellow educators and NC citizens for school funding, including equity measures. Other days, I just withdraw my participation from things I recognize as problematic. It doesn't get much easier than not participating, and if you're choosing the right things to not participate in, thank you.

You're quick -- as in "immediate" and as in "without much thought" -- to paint all black Democrats as sheep, but someone offers a pretty nuanced, thoughtful, measured post about the impressions the GOP gives people who aren't down w/ the GOP, suddenly you're all indignant over how misrepresented you are. You ought to be thanking @bkingUK and reflecting on how you could change that impression. Saying everybody else is stupid seems like a pretty bad ad campaign.

I’m not a protesting type of guy, but if there was anything I would protest for it would be for increased teacher wages. I’m not even a teacher, but I think they need to get about double (average) what they are currently getting paid. I have no clue why we don’t value the people who are teaching our children. It’s really crazy. I’ve had multiple conversations with my local representatives about this very topic.

One second point. Most democrats/liberals (hell, there are multiple people on this board) are quick to make judgements about people who support Trump. There are so many examples of where people claim all people who support Trump are dumb, immoral, racist, etc. all because we have differing political ideas. My whole point is to say, both sides do it. Both sides are quick to call out the other. Both sides are quick to point out hypocrisy of the other side.

 

[dukedevilz]

That's a fair point and I actually didn't know it was favored towards Republicans. However, the Democratic Party underwent a shift in power in that era from away from southern conservatives. The last of the old south Democrats was Robert Byrd, a former KKK member who died in the early 2000's. Those Democrats simply don't exist any more, and if we don't agree on that, then we can't agree on facts.

In addition, The GOP was not some beacon of civil rights. This is also the era of Barry Goldwater, who was so well revered by the right, that there is still an institution in his name.

And again, as initially stated, whether it is a correct or incorrect view that the GOP has sided against black people since the Civil Rights Era, the perception still exists, which is exactly my point.

Republicans aren't helping their case any if they want to shed that perception.

In the current era, the GOP strategically embraced the evangelical vote beginning with the "Christian Coalition". This has led to the GOP embracing even more xenophobic views to placate it's base. During the Iraq War, prior to the 2004 election, the debate on the war was almost secondary to the GOP fight against gay people getting married when the GOP made the fight against Proposition 8 a national debate. This led to several Republican states passing their own "defense of marriage" acts.

In states all over the country we see backwoods Republicans trying goofy shit like putting commandments in courthouses. Never mind the fact that many people aren't Christian, that it violates separation of church and state and the fact that it's completely a symbolic gesture intended to manipulate Christian votes.

Conservatives have attempted to inject religious dogma into public education, again disregarding civil liberties, facts and science. Conservatives had a concerted in effort (although some idiot Democrats joined in) to censor the media, including: rap music, Howard Stern, violent video games, etc.

The GOP takes an aggressive stance on immigration, again reinforcing the perception of being anti-non white people. It has waged a bullshit war on drugs, which largely incarcerates black people. It opposes the rights of women to control their own bodies. The list goes on.

And the point is this, regardless of economic policy, and things like "handouts" (which conservatives love to over-exaggerate), there isn't going to be some massive shift towards the Republican Party because it by nature alienates just about everyone who isn't a white conservative Christian.

There are some good, principled, conservatives, like Christopher Hitchens, but most mainstream conservative Republicans on outlets like Fox News are just complete idiots and I really don't understand how anyone can buy into that shit at all.

Yes, how terrible of Republicans fighting for the right of unborn babies - you know, a living organism that has a heartbeat at 22 days (22 days in the womb, that is). Your post started out pretty solid, actually. But then it was a downward spiral into fairly extreme views.

Liberals claim to be tolerant and open-minded. It doesn't bother me that you and Dat feel this way. I'd rather just have respect for my beliefs and views. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong unless you can provide some concrete data that says otherwise. But if I'm being honest, this is an argument that neither you or I can win. I'm simply defending my positions, which I believe are backed by statistics. If you want to believe in open-borders, big government, or whatever, fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the dogma which insists that we must change our views and acknowledge systemic racism or whatever BS narrative is floating around.

There was a study conducted at Dartmouth just last year which revealed that Republicans are much more open to having a roommate with differing beliefs. If liberals are going to be liberal, how about being "liberal" to people with different beliefs, too?

 

[lkc1234]

How about the first part of my question: How do any of these statistics prove that they are responsible for holding themselves back?

The very name of one stat you cited -- black-on-black crime -- is a construct arrived at by supremacist thinking. Crimes perpetrated against people are overwhelmingly within a single race. Crimes against white people are committed more often by white people. Crimes against Latinos are committed more often by Latinos. Crimes against black people are committed more often by black people. I don't know about Asians. We never refer to "white-on-white crime," though, b/c it doesn't fit the narrative. The only time I ever see so-called "black-on-black crime" mentioned is in blaming black people for it while refusing to consider racial bias that created the environment for it. It's never about concern for the victims. It's always a comeback.

You're never going to listen if you won't first accept the subconscious nature of systemic and implicit biases.

So racial bias is the reason for black on black crime. I guess blacks are biased against other blacks. You must have thought that one through many times.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Just curious,but did you use an abacus in calculus?

Slide rule!

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

So racial bias is the reason for black on black crime. I guess blacks are biased against other blacks. You must have thought that one through many times.

Everything that is negative toward a black is racial bias.
Blacks kill blacks because white men discriminate against them.
Black kill Whites because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks kill Latinos because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks drop out of high school because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks family structure is screwed up because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks vote 90% Democratic because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks life span is shorter because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks are unemployed because white men discriminate against them.

Whatever bad happens to blacks is because white men discriminate against them.

Why do white men discriminate against black people? Answer: because they are white and all white men are born racist.

 

[KyFaninNC]

According to Dat. Blacks have zero effect on their own lives. Whites are to blame. All other races on earth were given free will except blacks. I am appalled and curious why that is.

 

[Mac9192]

Everything that is negative toward a black is racial bias.
Blacks kill blacks because white men discriminate against them.
Black kill Whites because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks kill Latinos because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks drop out of high school because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks family structure is screwed up because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks vote 90% Democratic because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks life span is shorter because white men discriminate against them.
Blacks are unemployed because white men discriminate against them.

Whatever bad happens to blacks is because white men discriminate against them.

Why do white men discriminate against black people? Answer: because they are white and all white men are born racist.

Because of you Bert, somewhere out there Datt is running around with scissors in his hand.

 

[JimboBBN]

Yes, how terrible of Republicans fighting for the right of unborn babies - you know, a living organism that has a heartbeat at 22 days (22 days in the womb, that is). Your post started out pretty solid, actually. But then it was a downward spiral into fairly extreme views.

Liberals claim to be tolerant and open-minded. It doesn't bother me that you and Dat feel this way. I'd rather just have respect for my beliefs and views. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong unless you can provide some concrete data that says otherwise. But if I'm being honest, this is an argument that neither you or I can win. I'm simply defending my positions, which I believe are backed by statistics. If you want to believe in open-borders, big government, or whatever, fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the dogma which insists that we must change our views and acknowledge systemic racism or whatever BS narrative is floating around.

There was a study conducted at Dartmouth just last year which revealed that Republicans are much more open to having a roommate with differing beliefs. If liberals are going to be liberal, how about being "liberal" to people with different beliefs, too?

Interesting and good stuff. Nothing new to conservatives, though. We've been trying to get points like this across for a while and typically get the same responses each time.

 

[lkc1234]

How about the first part of my question: How do any of these statistics prove that they are responsible for holding themselves back?

The very name of one stat you cited -- black-on-black crime -- is a construct arrived at by supremacist thinking. Crimes perpetrated against people are overwhelmingly within a single race. Crimes against white people are committed more often by white people. Crimes against Latinos are committed more often by Latinos. Crimes against black people are committed more often by black people. I don't know about Asians. We never refer to "white-on-white crime," though, b/c it doesn't fit the narrative. The only time I ever see so-called "black-on-black crime" mentioned is in blaming black people for it while refusing to consider racial bias that created the environment for it. It's never about concern for the victims. It's always a comeback.

You're never going to listen if you won't first accept the subconscious nature of systemic and implicit biases.

Dattier, maybe you want to review this article. Of course this will not be reported by your favorite CNN site. When you have the president of the South Carolina NAACP reporting fake news no wonder we have race relations issues and a war on police officers by Black Lives Matter.
May 15, 2018 02:46 PM
Updated May 15, 2018 04:00 PM
The president of a local chapter of the NAACP in South Carolina said he was racially profiled in April by a police officer when he was pulled over for a traffic violation, but body camera footage released by the Timmonsville Police Department contradicts the reverend’s claims.
“TONIGHT I WAS RACIALLY PROFILED by Timmonsville Officer CAUSE I WAS DRIVING A MERCEDES BENZ AND GOING HOME IN A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD,” Jarrod Moultrie posted on Facebook April 13.
Timmonsville Police Officer Chris Miles stopped Moultrie for not engaging his turn signal before turning, according to the officer’s body camera footage and Moultrie’s Facebook post. A South Carolina Highway state trooper assisted the officer during the stop, according to Timmonsville police.
In the Facebook post, which has been deleted, Moultrie recounted the dialogue between him and Miles.
According to Moultrie, Miles asked him if he had any drugs in the car, where he worked, who was the owner of the car and why he was in the neighborhood.
“Me: sir I am a pastor and I live in the house on the left,” the post reads. “Officer: And I guess I am the bill gates.”
The encounter between Moultrie and Miles is different than what Moultrie described, based on police body camera footage released by the Timmonsville Police Department.
In the video, Miles identifies himself with Timmonsville police and asks for Moultrie’s license, registration and proof of insurance.
As Moultrie is unfolding paperwork, the officer asks, “Now you don’t own the motor vehicle?”
“Yes, sir, I just transferred,” Moultrie replied as he hands him what appears to be a receipt for the vehicle.
The officer repeats Moultrie’s statement about transferring tags and then asks for Moultrie’s name as he hands him the registration for the previous vehicle. Then the officer asks for Moultrie’s license and tells him why he stopped him.
“The reason I’m coming in contact with you is that whenever you took that left right here, you didn’t signal. Okay. That’s the only reason I’m coming in contact with you. Okay?”
After Moultrie gives Miles his license, the officer heads back to his patrol car, the body camera footage shows.
In the patrol car, the officer checks the registration, which he tells dispatch is for a 1992 GMC Sierra.
When the officer returns to Moultrie’s car, he tells him to try to not drive the car until he has the proper registration, the body camera footage shows.
When Moultrie tells Miles he bought the car recently and switched the tags, the officer interrupts him to say he needs to go to a DMV in South Carolina to ask why the tags are still registered to the truck.
“I switched the tags from the truck to the car,” Moultrie told the officer, while gesturing to the receipt of the Mercedes.
“They told me a DMV—the dealer put that on there, that showed the tags gonna be transferred. And all I need to do is keep this registration in there and this bill that’s here.”
“They told you wrong,” the officer responded. “You’ve got to have the proper documentation in your motor vehicle that actually matches the car that you’re operating on South Carolina highways.”
The officer then hands him back his license, tells him to wear his seatbelt and drive safely, the body camera footage shows.
Based on the body camera footage, the officer never asked Moultrie if he had drugs in the car nor why he was driving in that area.
Moultrie’s account of the dialogue between him and Miles when the officer returned to the Mercedes is different than what the body camera footage shows.
“Officer: I am warning you to not drive this car til tags get straight and just know I am doing you a favor tonight not taking you to jail or writing you a ticket,” the post reads.
In the post, Moultrie says his wife was in the back seat without a seat belt and with a baby out of the car seat. He also mentioned he would follow up with Timmonsville police because “someone needs to answer for this behavior.”
Timmonsville Police Chief Billy Brown said Moultrie contacted him the day after the traffic stop to say he was racially profiled and mistreated, ABC15 News reported.
When Brown reviewed the body camera footage, he said he was shocked that the reverend would lie about the encounter.
“When I saw the video, I was shocked that someone who is supposed to be a community leader, a pastor, and head of the NAACP would just come out and tell a blatant lie,” Brown said to the news station.
“It bothered me. It really bothered me, thinking about the racial unrest it could've cost in the community and it's just troubling to me that someone who held a position like that would come out and just tell a lie."
Moultrie was elected president of the chapter, which was inactive for several years, in 2017, SC Now reported.
Moultrie said to SC Now in 2017 that many of the problems that he wanted to address--school board inadequacies, unjust city ordinances, low voter registration and the lack of police presence--in Timmonsville were rooted in electing city officials based on history, rather than credibility, and not holding elected officials accountable.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article211166024.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article211166024.html
If you would like to read the article copy and paste this in your address bar. This war on police officers has to stop.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Dattier, maybe you want to review this article. Of course this will not be reported by your favorite CNN site. When you have the president of the South Carolina NAACP reporting fake news no wonder we have race relations issues.
May 15, 2018 02:46 PM
Updated May 15, 2018 04:00 PM
The president of a local chapter of the NAACP in South Carolina said he was racially profiled in April by a police officer when he was pulled over for a traffic violation, but body camera footage released by the Timmonsville Police Department contradicts the reverend’s claims.
“TONIGHT I WAS RACIALLY PROFILED by Timmonsville Officer CAUSE I WAS DRIVING A MERCEDES BENZ AND GOING HOME IN A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD,” Jarrod Moultrie posted on Facebook April 13.
Timmonsville Police Officer Chris Miles stopped Moultrie for not engaging his turn signal before turning, according to the officer’s body camera footage and Moultrie’s Facebook post. A South Carolina Highway state trooper assisted the officer during the stop, according to Timmonsville police.
In the Facebook post, which has been deleted, Moultrie recounted the dialogue between him and Miles.
According to Moultrie, Miles asked him if he had any drugs in the car, where he worked, who was the owner of the car and why he was in the neighborhood.
“Me: sir I am a pastor and I live in the house on the left,” the post reads. “Officer: And I guess I am the bill gates.”
The encounter between Moultrie and Miles is different than what Moultrie described, based on police body camera footage released by the Timmonsville Police Department.
In the video, Miles identifies himself with Timmonsville police and asks for Moultrie’s license, registration and proof of insurance.
As Moultrie is unfolding paperwork, the officer asks, “Now you don’t own the motor vehicle?”
“Yes, sir, I just transferred,” Moultrie replied as he hands him what appears to be a receipt for the vehicle.
The officer repeats Moultrie’s statement about transferring tags and then asks for Moultrie’s name as he hands him the registration for the previous vehicle. Then the officer asks for Moultrie’s license and tells him why he stopped him.
“The reason I’m coming in contact with you is that whenever you took that left right here, you didn’t signal. Okay. That’s the only reason I’m coming in contact with you. Okay?”
After Moultrie gives Miles his license, the officer heads back to his patrol car, the body camera footage shows.
In the patrol car, the officer checks the registration, which he tells dispatch is for a 1992 GMC Sierra.
When the officer returns to Moultrie’s car, he tells him to try to not drive the car until he has the proper registration, the body camera footage shows.
When Moultrie tells Miles he bought the car recently and switched the tags, the officer interrupts him to say he needs to go to a DMV in South Carolina to ask why the tags are still registered to the truck.
“I switched the tags from the truck to the car,” Moultrie told the officer, while gesturing to the receipt of the Mercedes.
“They told me a DMV—the dealer put that on there, that showed the tags gonna be transferred. And all I need to do is keep this registration in there and this bill that’s here.”
“They told you wrong,” the officer responded. “You’ve got to have the proper documentation in your motor vehicle that actually matches the car that you’re operating on South Carolina highways.”
The officer then hands him back his license, tells him to wear his seatbelt and drive safely, the body camera footage shows.
Based on the body camera footage, the officer never asked Moultrie if he had drugs in the car nor why he was driving in that area.
Moultrie’s account of the dialogue between him and Miles when the officer returned to the Mercedes is different than what the body camera footage shows.
“Officer: I am warning you to not drive this car til tags get straight and just know I am doing you a favor tonight not taking you to jail or writing you a ticket,” the post reads.
In the post, Moultrie says his wife was in the back seat without a seat belt and with a baby out of the car seat. He also mentioned he would follow up with Timmonsville police because “someone needs to answer for this behavior.”
Timmonsville Police Chief Billy Brown said Moultrie contacted him the day after the traffic stop to say he was racially profiled and mistreated, ABC15 News reported.
When Brown reviewed the body camera footage, he said he was shocked that the reverend would lie about the encounter.
“When I saw the video, I was shocked that someone who is supposed to be a community leader, a pastor, and head of the NAACP would just come out and tell a blatant lie,” Brown said to the news station.
“It bothered me. It really bothered me, thinking about the racial unrest it could've cost in the community and it's just troubling to me that someone who held a position like that would come out and just tell a lie."
Moultrie was elected president of the chapter, which was inactive for several years, in 2017, SC Now reported.
Moultrie said to SC Now in 2017 that many of the problems that he wanted to address--school board inadequacies, unjust city ordinances, low voter registration and the lack of police presence--in Timmonsville were rooted in electing city officials based on history, rather than credibility, and not holding elected officials accountable.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article211166024.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article211166024.html
If you would like to read the article copy and paste this in your address bar.

You don't know what that man was thinking. Maybe he and the officer just saw things differently. Doesn't mean he lied. In his mind, because of all of his years as an oppressed black man, it could have gone down the way he described. Let's not be too quick to judge here.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Because of you Bert, somewhere out there Datt is running around with scissors in his hand.

Now you got me worried Mac.Eyeroll

Dattier is a fine person. I would love to meet him. We would be friends who could argue endless and rarely get mad.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Check this "victim" out. Gets pulled over for speeding. Acknowledges she was speeding, starts fake crying saying she is scared of cops because they hurt black people. Then when the officer very politely asked if she needed an ambulance, she immediately stops fake crying and says that him asking that was very offensive.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Check this "victim" out. Gets pulled over for speeding. Acknowledges she was speeding, starts fake crying saying she is scared of cops because they hurt black people. Then when the officer very politely asked if she needed an ambulance, she immediately stops fake crying and says that him asking that was very offensive.

View embedded media

wood

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

You don't know what that man was thinking. Maybe he and the officer just saw things differently. Doesn't mean he lied. In his mind, because of all of his years as an oppressed black man, it could have gone down the way he described. Let's not be too quick to judge here.

Yup. Gotta hear both sides.

 

[lkc1234]

You don't know what that man was thinking. Maybe he and the officer just saw things differently. Doesn't mean he lied. In his mind, because of all of his years as an oppressed black man, it could have gone down the way he described. Let's not be too quick to judge here.

Really. Just because he lied and tried to make false claims against a white officer. Of course he immediately took down the lie posted on facebook after being outed.