USA heading down a grim road....

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You are free to play your little leftist games with me Dave, using your "Oh, you won't say IT out loud" along with your "Is there something inherent about black people" insinuation that I'm a racist. 

Coming from You, the typical white, guilt-ridden leftist who is so intellectually vacuous that you aren't interested in understanding what the real reasons are for the problems in the black community which are causing the inordinate crime rate, I'll simply explain it to you this way.  Before I do though, let me just say that I don't give a damn what your inference of me is, just as I don't give a damn about you, and your radical leftist mindset. 

In so many black communities around the nation, the leadership in those communities has promoted the idea of the welfare state for the single mother and other poor blacks, in order to get them on the plantation of liberal leftist politicians and gov't, and ultimately dependent upon that welfare system. 

When the gov't welfare state takes the place of fathers in the household, and when that idea is promoted by white leftist leaders to many black families for the past 6 decades, as a substitute for responsibility of young black men, the result is what we see today.  

Simply put, the culture of black communities in this country has been to be uncritical of men who don't support their families and children.  Polls have determined that to be factual, that for some reason in black communities, there is really no frowning upon fathers who abandon their children.  Why that is, will be studied by of course PhDs, who will call out structural racism as the cause, rather than the true reason, being that abandonment of their families by many inner city blacks, it is not stigmatized in the black community. 

Now I'm not even interested in getting into any sort of colloquy with you, aside to say that you can bring on all the PhDs you want who will make excuses and blame society itself for the ills of so many black families, brought on by poverty and the bullshit leftist assertion of "systemic racism", which I've read in bundles over the decades.

You are free to buy into their leftist bullshit, which I realize you do, that it is all the fault of growing up poor, however history tells us flat out that growing up poor has never made one demographic kill one another by the bushel, which is occurring in the leftist DEMOCRAT RUN inner cities, and which haughty, self-righteous liberals like yourself ignore on a minute by minute basis.  

Now then, did I answer "out loud" your accusations and your insinuations about me to your satisfaction?    

If not, I guess that falls under the header of too bad for you, I really couldn't care one wit anyway.  

I don't know why I'm trying, Dave, but here goes another kick at the cat!

Rich,  I'm not surprised by your partisan claim that Democrats created welfare to control Black communities. You've tossed this claim out many times over the years. Unfortunately, that idea falls apart quickly under scrutiny. Welfare has always supported low-income families across races, including plenty of white Americans. Framing it as a political trap for Black people just isn't backed by facts.

Same with the crime-in-Democratic-cities argument. Cities tend to lean Democratic due to urban-rural divides, rather than due to racial demographics or crime rates. High crime is strongly tied to poverty, inequality, and lack of investment, not the party in charge. And if Democratic leadership were to cause crime, cities like Jacksonville and Tulsa, both led by Republicans, wouldn't have high crime rates, either.

Systemic racism is real, and it's not about blaming white people, so you can stop feeling threatened by the idea. Systemic racism is about well-understood patterns in our history that are supported by data and collective experience. We are talking about things like housing and education inequality, redlining, policing policies, hiring policies, and much more that have created unequal outcomes over generations. It's fine to demand personal responsibility from our communities, but that and the desire for systemic reform to correct past wrongs are not mutually exclusive; we can pursue both simultaneously. Pretending we have to choose between them is a false choice. If you genuinely wanted the truth, you would be willing to challenge your assumptions, not just repeat long-standing, outdated, and easily refuted conservative talking points.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You are free to play your little leftist games with me Dave, using your "Oh, you won't say IT out loud" along with your "Is there something inherent about black people" insinuation that I'm a racist. 

Coming from You, the typical white, guilt-ridden leftist who is so intellectually vacuous that you aren't interested in understanding what the real reasons are for the problems in the black community which are causing the inordinate crime rate, I'll simply explain it to you this way.  Before I do though, let me just say that I don't give a damn what your inference of me is, just as I don't give a damn about you, and your radical leftist mindset. 

In so many black communities around the nation, the leadership in those communities has promoted the idea of the welfare state for the single mother and other poor blacks, in order to get them on the plantation of liberal leftist politicians and gov't, and ultimately dependent upon that welfare system. 

When the gov't welfare state takes the place of fathers in the household, and when that idea is promoted by white leftist leaders to many black families for the past 6 decades, as a substitute for responsibility of young black men, the result is what we see today.  

Simply put, the culture of black communities in this country has been to be uncritical of men who don't support their families and children.  Polls have determined that to be factual, that for some reason in black communities, there is really no frowning upon fathers who abandon their children.  Why that is, will be studied by of course PhDs, who will call out structural racism as the cause, rather than the true reason, being that abandonment of their families by many inner city blacks, it is not stigmatized in the black community. 

Now I'm not even interested in getting into any sort of colloquy with you, aside to say that you can bring on all the PhDs you want who will make excuses and blame society itself for the ills of so many black families, brought on by poverty and the bullshit leftist assertion of "systemic racism", which I've read in bundles over the decades.

You are free to buy into their leftist bullshit, which I realize you do, that it is all the fault of growing up poor, however history tells us flat out that growing up poor has never made one demographic kill one another by the bushel, which is occurring in the leftist DEMOCRAT RUN inner cities, and which haughty, self-righteous liberals like yourself ignore on a minute by minute basis.  

Now then, did I answer "out loud" your accusations and your insinuations about me to your satisfaction?    

If not, I guess that falls under the header of too bad for you, I really couldn't care one wit anyway.  

Richard - I think you have a point - cultural issues like the failure of many black fathers to be responsible, the celebration of gang culture, and the like, are a cause of the high rate of criminality among young black men.  According to Thomas Sowell, it was not this way when he was a kid in Harlem. 

I also think Dave has strong points.  Historic and modern racism has led to poverty and lack of opportunity for wide swaths of the black community, which has led to irresponsible fathers and the celebration of gang culture and so on.  It is a vicious cycle.

I think you and Dave could have a satisfying and informative dialog about these issues, if you tried.  Really drilling down on the root causes and intervening social effects leading to young black male criminality might, in my opinion, lead you and Dave to a place where you agree in large part.    

It would help the dialog along if you left out the gratuitous digs like I have highlighted above.   You realize, I hope, that the name calling and belittling makes actual dialog impossible, even when everyone is making valid and possibly concurrent points.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't know why I'm trying, Dave, but here goes another kick at the cat!

Rich,  I'm not surprised by your partisan claim that Democrats created welfare to control Black communities. You've tossed this claim out many times over the years. Unfortunately, that idea falls apart quickly under scrutiny. Welfare has always supported low-income families across races, including plenty of white Americans. Framing it as a political trap for Black people just isn't backed by facts.

Same with the crime-in-Democratic-cities argument. Cities tend to lean Democratic due to urban-rural divides, rather than due to racial demographics or crime rates. High crime is strongly tied to poverty, inequality, and lack of investment, not the party in charge. And if Democratic leadership were to cause crime, cities like Jacksonville and Tulsa, both led by Republicans, wouldn't have high crime rates, either.

Systemic racism is real, and it's not about blaming white people, so you can stop feeling threatened by the idea. Systemic racism is about well-understood patterns in our history that are supported by data and collective experience. We are talking about things like housing and education inequality, redlining, policing policies, hiring policies, and much more that have created unequal outcomes over generations. It's fine to demand personal responsibility from our communities, but that and the desire for systemic reform to correct past wrongs are not mutually exclusive; we can pursue both simultaneously. Pretending we have to choose between them is a false choice. If you genuinely wanted the truth, you would be willing to challenge your assumptions, not just repeat long-standing, outdated, and easily refuted conservative talking points.

James, I was just going to post something along these lines.  There is a huge semantic problem though.  Some factions of the left use "systemic racism" far more broadly than your definition above.  In their opinion, the US is a racist country at the core, probably irredeemably, and something to be ashamed of.  Of course, these same folks literally despise Trump voters and actively belittle and hate them.  For these folks it is indeed about blaming white people.  I saw a lot of this on line after the election.  I still do.  

So, given that Richard is a Trump supporter, I can appreciate that he might view phrases like "systemic racism" as code from the left reflecting a world view where there are (A) good and caring liberals on one side and (B) irredeemably racist, Trump-supporting scum on the other.   

I absolutely know that you do not see the world this way, but I personally know quite a few liberals who do.   Of course they think they are justified because hard core MAGA types quite possibly hate them too.  It is pointless to try to identify the root cause of our political divides becoming so emotionally charges and hate filled.   They have though.  It is tragic.  Thus, I can see why Richard would get his dander up based upon his likely interpretation of the word "systemic racism" which surely differs from yours.

Originally Posted by James Brown

James, I was just going to post something along these lines.  There is a huge semantic problem though.  Some factions of the left use "systemic racism" far more broadly than your definition above.  In their opinion, the US is a racist country at the core, probably irredeemably, and something to be ashamed of.  Of course, these same folks literally despise Trump voters and actively belittle and hate them.  For these folks it is indeed about blaming white people.  I saw a lot of this on line after the election.  I still do.  

So, given that Richard is a Trump supporter, I can appreciate that he might view phrases like "systemic racism" as code from the left reflecting a world view where there are (A) good and caring liberals on one side and (B) irredeemably racist, Trump-supporting scum on the other.   

I absolutely know that you do not see the world this way, but I personally know quite a few liberals who do.   Of course they think they are justified because hard core MAGA types quite possibly hate them too.  It is pointless to try to identify the root cause of our political divides becoming so emotionally charges and hate filled.   They have though.  It is tragic.  Thus, I can see why Richard would get his dander up based upon his likely interpretation of the word "systemic racism" which surely differs from yours.

Yes, I certainly don't believe that the US is a racist country to its core, but at the same time, we have pursued and tolerated a lot of racist practices and policies. For example, redlining; it's unfathomable that anyone would deny that the practice of redlining occurred, as there is too much evidence to support it. And do I need to mention chattel slavery? It's ridiculous in my opinion to deny our racist past. Additionally, these issues with our past and present are not unique to the US; many countries face similar challenges. Brazil, for example, still struggles with racism rooted in its colonial past and slavery. I guess my main point is, outright rejecting the idea of systemic racism is not based in fact; it's an emotional or political response, not an evidence-based one.

Originally Posted by James Brown

James, I was just going to post something along these lines.  There is a huge semantic problem though.  Some factions of the left use "systemic racism" far more broadly than your definition above.  In their opinion, the US is a racist country at the core, probably irredeemably, and something to be ashamed of.  Of course, these same folks literally despise Trump voters and actively belittle and hate them.  For these folks it is indeed about blaming white people.  I saw a lot of this on line after the election.  I still do.  

So, given that Richard is a Trump supporter, I can appreciate that he might view phrases like "systemic racism" as code from the left reflecting a world view where there are (A) good and caring liberals on one side and (B) irredeemably racist, Trump-supporting scum on the other.   

I absolutely know that you do not see the world this way, but I personally know quite a few liberals who do.   Of course they think they are justified because hard core MAGA types quite possibly hate them too.  It is pointless to try to identify the root cause of our political divides becoming so emotionally charges and hate filled.   They have though.  It is tragic.  Thus, I can see why Richard would get his dander up based upon his likely interpretation of the word "systemic racism" which surely differs from yours.

Another "legal" consideration here is being overlooked. That being "racial gerrymandering" wherein black voters have been denied representatives of their choice:

"...the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama’s redistricting was not “simply a partisan gerrymander” by Republicans but actually a “racial gerrymander,” and those district lines were subject to revision."

"Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state’s seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state’s election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures."

https://time.com/7304038/gerrymandering-partisan-racial-redistricting-trump-texas-republicans/

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Yes, I certainly don't believe that the US is a racist country to its core, but at the same time, we have pursued and tolerated a lot of racist practices and policies. For example, redlining; it's unfathomable that anyone would deny that the practice of redlining occurred, as there is too much evidence to support it. And do I need to mention chattel slavery? It's ridiculous in my opinion to deny our racist past. Additionally, these issues with our past and present are not unique to the US; many countries face similar challenges. Brazil, for example, still struggles with racism rooted in its colonial past and slavery. I guess my main point is, outright rejecting the idea of systemic racism is not based in fact; it's an emotional or political response, not an evidence-based one.

Absolutely.  Frankly, I doubt Richard would deny our racist past and I doubt he would deny examples of present day racism.  I am curious if he will reasonably engage with you and Dave on these points.   

That said, I believe allegations of modern racism can be a blunt club wielded by sanctimonious on-line or media Trump haters to unreasonably bash Trump supporters.  I say this even though racism is/was undeniably real.   I don't  think you or Dave used racism in this fashion, but I think I understand in general why Richard might have been... ahem..."triggered."  

Back to the merits, I think it is defensible to say past racism, and to a lesser extent, present racism led to poverty and a lack of work/education opportunity in the black community.  Poverty and a failure of opportunity led to, among other things, erosion of family values, work values, and education values in portions of the black community.  All of this (actual racism, poverty, lack of opportunity, erosion of family values, and more) leads to a relatively higher rate of crime among young black males.  It is beyond me, and maybe impossible, to draw a clear cause-effect mapping explaining the higher black crime rate.   To the extent anyone says the answer is "racism" or any other one thing, I think they are grossly over-simplifying and probably have a political agenda.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Another "legal" consideration here is being overlooked. That being "racial gerrymandering" wherein black voters have been denied representatives of their choice:

"...the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama’s redistricting was not “simply a partisan gerrymander” by Republicans but actually a “racial gerrymander,” and those district lines were subject to revision."

"Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state’s seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state’s election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures."

https://time.com/7304038/gerrymandering-partisan-racial-redistricting-trump-texas-republicans/

Texas Republicans are currently pursuing a gerrymandering power grab at the behest of Trump. Usually, maps are redrawn every 10 years, and this will be a rare mid-decade revamp, primarily intended to maintain the GOP's control of the U.S. House of Representatives. I know that both parties have engaged in gerrymandering in the past, but this instance appears to be especially brazen, even for Texas Republicans.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Another "legal" consideration here is being overlooked. That being "racial gerrymandering" wherein black voters have been denied representatives of their choice:

"...the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama’s redistricting was not “simply a partisan gerrymander” by Republicans but actually a “racial gerrymander,” and those district lines were subject to revision."

"Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state’s seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state’s election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures."

https://time.com/7304038/gerrymandering-partisan-racial-redistricting-trump-texas-republicans/

Racial gerrymandering is a good example of modern day racism. 

Side fact, I and many other Rs and RINOs, were gerrymandered into the Boulder district to favor our now Governor Polis, back when he was in Congress.   Boulder remained D of course, even with an influx of R votes.  but my natural Golden/Lakewood district at the time went from "toss-up" to solidly D.   So it goes.   Purely partisan-advantage gerrymandering is a hardball game both sides play.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Texas Republicans are currently pursuing a gerrymandering power grab at the behest of Trump. Usually, maps are redrawn every 10 years, and this will be a rare mid-decade revamp, primarily intended to maintain the GOP's control of the U.S. House of Representatives. I know that both parties have engaged in gerrymandering in the past, but this instance appears to be especially brazen, even for Texas Republicans.

According to Rod's article, California is planning to retaliate.  Partisan gerrymandering is one those things the parties love and the public simply hates.   It is probably impossible to tell, but I would bet the motivation in most modern gerrymandering cases is partisan advantage, not racism.  But clearly, R partisan advantage in any given district might dilute the overall black political voice.  So, if the motivation is partisan advantage, and a side effect is a dilution of minority representation, is the gerrymander racist?  I think you can argue that one both ways.  

You can bet they are arguing both sides of that in Court right now, because racially based gerrymandering is illegal, but in many states, partisan advantage gerrymandering is not.  At least so long as the lines are semi-rationally drawn.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Richard - I think you have a point - cultural issues like the failure of many black fathers to be responsible, the celebration of gang culture, and the like, are a cause of the high rate of criminality among young black men.  According to Thomas Sowell, it was not this way when he was a kid in Harlem. 

I also think Dave has strong points.  Historic and modern racism has led to poverty and lack of opportunity for wide swaths of the black community, which has led to irresponsible fathers and the celebration of gang culture and so on.  It is a vicious cycle.

I think you and Dave could have a satisfying and informative dialog about these issues, if you tried.  Really drilling down on the root causes and intervening social effects leading to young black male criminality might, in my opinion, lead you and Dave to a place where you agree in large part.    

It would help the dialog along if you left out the gratuitous digs like I have highlighted above.   You realize, I hope, that the name calling and belittling makes actual dialog impossible, even when everyone is making valid and possibly concurrent points.  J

Let me address your little lecture to me about "gratuitous personal digs" this way.  When you become able enough to begin lecturing both sides of the aisle in a conversation even handedly and fairly, I'll consider giving your lecture some sort of weight and I'll then consider your words above in bold.

Until you can bring yourself to do that, I'm truly not interested in being lectured to by a bias source such as yourself on personal digs and treating people fairly

This is your problem Jim.  Like all liberals you are happy to call out ONE side of the conversation continuously on their verbal treatment of the other side of the conversation.

Therefore, since this how you tend to approach it always, which is to ignore the personal digs coming from one side of the aisle, your leftist friends here (Dave in this instance) the same way you regularly call out me for my name calling and belittling of them.

Dave made a straightforward and direct Insinuation about my character which I explained very clearly in his posting, which You either:  A) purposely chose to ignore, overlook, and let pass, or B) Are so blinded by your leftism that you truly didn't notice it.

Either way, until you begin calling out both sides of the aisle for their character attacks, I'm really not interested in listening to You and Your lectures to me on decorum or civility.  

Now then, in addressing you personally, I'll simply point out that YOU having the f'n Gall to call me out for my so-called gratuitous digs, is a laugh out loud riot that makes me almost laugh myself off of my chair.

I wonder how many times on this particular forum you have referred to me using your gratuitous digs, referring to me as a misogynist, a racist, or any other colorful term or descriptor of me that you can conjure up in your head? 

Would you say it has been dozens of times or hundreds of times? Feel free to put a number on it.  

So then, let me put it to you this way.

IF you weren't such a massive hypocrite and one who is SO devoid of self-awareness (yes, I'll invoke your little buddy James's favorite descriptor of me, right back at You), then I might be willing to listen to and take to heart your criticism of me above. 

When exactly was the last time you jumped into a discussion that you weren't involved in initially to make your little dig at me which goes something like this "Rich is busy in his mother's basement...."?  

Would you guess that you had made that gratuitous dig within the last 3 months?  2 months? 4 months?    

When YOU decide to change Your approach to me, then and ONLY then will I even deign to consider Your criticisms and look to having any sort of civil dialogue with you and this would include YOU learning to exhibit 1/10th of 1 OUNCE Of humility on your part.

Got it?