A little education for our Maga/Alt-Right friends.

[cawacko]

Those are huge questions which we will not be able to fully address here.

In general though my answer is 'yes".

Do you point to other issues sure to arise, yes. Are they ones that could not be overcome with a general re-emphasis of yes Social Contract societies owe to each other. No.

I'm a real estate guy so I love these discussions. And politically, there really is no 'if you're a Republican you believe this about housing and zoning' and 'if you're a Democrat you believe this about housing and zoning'. It just doesn't work that way.

And the analogy I like to use is one person can have an I Love Trump sign in their yard and the next door neighbor can have an I Hate Trump sign, but they will metaphorically walk hand in hand to a planning commission meeting to fight together against new development in their neighborhood.

For many people their home is the largest asset they own. Therefore political partisanship and ideology often gets tossed out the window when it comes to their neighborhood/city and new development.

Race clearly played a role in the history of housing and zoning in this country. And those effects haven't disappeared today. That said, there's also very much a class element at play now. Someone being black doesn't necessarily mean they support inclusive zoning if they move to a nice single family suburb for example.

You're right, this is JPP not some housing think tank. I'm just sharing why I participate in this conversation.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Where we're at right now is just... you're an ugly person TaiChi, so all you see is ugliness in everything, and you refuse to see anything else.

What happened is that you and uglies like you saw a system that was designed to help people keep their homes, which was a good thing, and as with everything else, you just had to find a way to wrap your ugly narrative around it.

Then you watched a TikTok video that tickled your confirmation bias and here you are, running your ugly mouth at full blast.

The FACT is that the redline policy helped black people out just fine, the ratio of blacks getting help seemed almost disproportionately high TBH, and it started out quite sensibly, because at that time there really was no way for central banks to have a credit rating system... The type of information that those companies gather and share to come up with a credit score wasn't shareable to the extent that it is today, on account of the fact that there was no internet and there were no computers. There were also no car loans or CC's to build a rating. No phone bills or cell phone bills, no cable bill, etc. So the best they could do was make a hasty generalization based on the type of housing people lived in. It wasn't the best system that could ever be developed, but at the end of a mtg crisis, it was all they could do.

Let's be honest, TaiChi: I know that you call Trump a rapist, based on zero evidence, because that is the type of person you are, and this redlining issue is the exact same type of thing.... There's just enough evidence to tickle your confirmation bias, and to you, that's a verdict. And it's a verdict to you because you're so deeply ugly inside that you assume that everything else is going to be ugly as well.

Yep. Right on schedule and regurgitating the SOS as previously said in our earlier exchanges ... as I predicted.

When I reduce these maga/alt-right clods to this level of blathering , I just put them on the ignore list, as it clears my threads and leaves them to sputtering and fuming.

Take off, my little Canadian .

 

[Taichiliberal]

While i am not for direct reparations, the idea DOES have merit based on the long US history of DIRECT gov't intervention to enrich and support white people as a group at the expense of black people with the goal of providing the opportunity to build generational wealth to the white group, while preventing the black group from doing same.

It simply is fact and history that is what was done starting with paying reparations to slave owners but not slaves, as if the owners were the victims, to Red lining and Voting power issues that continue today, and empowered by this current Supreme Court in a last ditch attempt to maintain the power balance.

The indirect reparations that i DO THINK are owed and should be paid, are significant investments in identifiable minority communities in both the public schools, State Colleges/Universities, and support programs for such.

This would be a recognition by the gov't that past transgressions, STILL IN PLAY TODAY, around generation wealth are largely unable to be made whole (as per the very nature of generational wealth), but current and future investments can help close that gap, the gov't helped create.

If gov't also wants to target impoverished white, mostly rural areas, fine, but that is a separate issue from this.

And from a purely pragmatic perspective i recognize that 'targeted programs to mostly black areas' would be far more difficult than instead focusing on 'just impoverished regardless of race' which would largely help a lot of black communities, which is why i would advise taking the pragmatic path, but that DOES NOT change what is true, what is actually deserved, and what would be right, which was contained in my first points.

Here's the thing: congress will NEVER pass a reparations bill in our life time. The best to hope for are individual state rulings were individual families who can prove slave lineage to current day corporations and large businesses. There are already cases of this being done.

What annoys me is when people try to minimize or equate or even dismiss the added burden of racist policies to just business as usual for everyone in the real estate market. That's just knee jerk defense that flies in the face of historical reality.

 

[QP!]

Here's the thing: congress will NEVER pass a reparations bill in our life time. The best to hope for are individual state rulings were individual families who can prove slave lineage to current day corporations and large businesses. There are already cases of this being done.

What annoys me is when people try to minimize or equate or even dismiss the added burden of racist policies to just business as usual for everyone in the real estate market. That's just knee jerk defense that flies in the face of historical reality.

Agreed.

Which is why it believe big investments by government in impoverished areas regardless of race is the best path forward, and that money should come from a very progressive tax policy.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Agreed.

Which is why it believe big investments by government in impoverished areas regardless of race is the best path forward, and that money should come from a very progressive tax policy.

I can get behind that also!

 

[Matt Dillon]

Here's the complete text our intellectually dishonest Canadian maga edited out:

Someone explain to gumby here that TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION TO AVOID HIS INABILITY TO DISPROVE MY DECONSTRUCION OF HIS PREVIOUS EVIDENCE AND SCREEDS FOOLS NO ONE BUT THE CLOWN HE SEES IN THE MIRROR .... and his equally intellectually impotent brethren.

The OP stands, as does my explanations and rebuttals. For the objective reader, here's the chronology of the posts that puts this Canadian clown in his place:

Posts #254 (where he picks up the gauntlet for Cawacko), #258, 267, 276 and 285.

This Canadian clown (if he is indeed Canadian) is a carbon copy of our resident maga mooks and alt-right reprehensible. He just to all critical analysis and basic historical facts that contradict his beliefs. Add to that his insipid stubbornness that blinds him to his preposterous self congratulatory stance is pretty much par for the course. I said before that this clown would do as I predicted, and he hasn't let me down. Good times.


So you haven't logically or factually "proved" anything, gumby. You just reject any fact-based analysis that counteracts your beliefs and supportive evidence. The chronology of the posts shows that, your denial irrelevant.

As I stated earlier, since you cannot win the ORIGINAL topic of the debate, you throw in the kitchen sink and try to literally change the subject, thinking you'll find a "got'cha" moment that somehow validates your original points on another topic.

Sorry gumby, but that BS only plays to the grinning clown you see in the mirror and other failed right wing racist and clowns on this site.

All you've got is repetition, denial, blowing smoke with self-aggrandizing BS the posts just don't support to the objective reader. You're done and I'm done slapping you around.

 

[zymurgy]

so FDR was a racist?

probably. He was certainly a piece of shit

 

[Taichiliberal]

so FDR was a racist?

probably. He was certainly a piece of shit

In part, he was. Some fascinating reading on his mindset about American Indians, executive orders 8802 and 9066.

 

[zymurgy]

In part, he was. Some fascinating reading on his mindset about American Indians, executive orders 8802 and 9066.

Oh, the irony. You're trying to educate the very people who are wary of centralized government power by showing them how a powerful federal government institutionalized racial discrimination.

Yes, please, tell us more about the dangers of trusting government with enormous power. We're clearly the ones who need this history lesson.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Oh, the irony. You're trying to educate the very people who are wary of centralized government power by showing them how a powerful federal government institutionalized racial discrimination.

Yes, please, tell us more about the dangers of trusting government with enormous power. We're clearly the ones who need this history lesson.

Man, what is your problem?!? WTF are you on about now? I AGREE with you on a point and you try to turn it into some BS confrontation.

GROW THE FUCK UP, ZYMURGY. You can't refute, debunk or disprove the OP and my subsquent rebuttals to your like minded brethren, so instead you mischaracterize my response to you on a side issue. And that is the problem with the maga/alt-right cult .... they act as if there is no mutual agreement or common ground on any level with people who oppose most of their political/social outlook.

I'm a true progressive/liberal and registered Independent voter. So I don't necessarily lock step with the a group nor ignore common ground or take BS from either side. After all these years, you should have at least surmised that. If not, I can't help you.

So, anything of worth to further add regarding the OP?

 

[zymurgy]

Man, what is your problem?!? WTF are you on about now? I AGREE with you on a point and you try to turn it into some BS confrontation.

GROW THE FUCK UP, ZYMURGY. You can't refute, debunk or disprove the OP and my subsquent rebuttals to your like minded brethren, so instead you mischaracterize my response to you on a side issue. And that is the problem with the maga/alt-right cult .... they act as if there is no mutual agreement or common ground on any level with people who oppose most of their political/social outlook.

I'm a true progressive/liberal and registered Independent voter. So I don't necessarily lock step with the a group nor ignore common ground or take BS from either side. After all these years, you should have at least surmised that. If not, I can't help you.

So, anything of worth to further add regarding the OP?

You're missing the fundamental distinction between our positions.

You seem determined to frame this as a lesson about racism on the right. I see it as a lesson about the dangers of concentrating power in government.

My position starts with the recognition that individuals are flawed, prejudice exists across the political spectrum, and government officials are no exception. Give those individuals enormous power, and their prejudices can become institutionalized policy.

That's precisely why I'm wary of centralized government power in the first place.

You look at this history and conclude that right-wingers need to be educated about racism. I look at the same history and see another example of why government power needs to be constrained, regardless of which political party controls it.

We can agree on the historical injustice without agreeing on the lesson you're trying to draw from it.

And disagreeing with your interpretation isn't denying history.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're missing the fundamental distinction between our positions.

You seem determined to frame this as a lesson about racism on the right. I see it as a lesson about the dangers of concentrating power in government.

My position starts with the recognition that individuals are flawed, prejudice exists across the political spectrum, and government officials are no exception. Give those individuals enormous power, and their prejudices can become institutionalized policy.

That's precisely why I'm wary of centralized government power in the first place.

You look at this history and conclude that right-wingers need to be educated about racism. I look at the same history and see another example of why government power needs to be constrained, regardless of which political party controls it.

We can agree on the historical injustice without agreeing on the lesson you're trying to draw from it.

And disagreeing with your interpretation isn't denying history.

Baloney! The bottom line is folk with your mindset have no problem with federal laws and regulations so long as it suits your ideology and personal wants ... the latest example being the rescinding Roe v. Wade and the subsequent draconian laws enacted by some states. Hell, the federal laws that allowed my parents to send me to any school they chose and could afford is just 4 years older than me. The law that reaffirmed my civil rights just 4 years younger.

The OP video schools those who are in denial of just one aspect of "white privilege" and debunks the BS they tell themselves. Historical facts, especially when documented by reputable sources can be denied but not disproved. That's the point of the OP and my subsequent posts.

 

[zymurgy]

Baloney! The bottom line is folk with your mindset have no problem with federal laws and regulations so long as it suits your ideology and personal wants ... the latest example being the rescinding Roe v. Wade and the subsequent draconian laws enacted by some states. Hell, the federal laws that allowed my parents to send me to any school they chose and could afford is just 4 years older than me. The law that reaffirmed my civil rights just 4 years younger.

The OP video schools those who are in denial of just one aspect of "white privilege" and debunks the BS they tell themselves. Historical facts, especially when documented by reputable sources can be denied but not disproved. That's the point of the OP and my subsequent posts.

You're arguing against a position I never took. Government can protect civil rights, but it can also institutionalize discrimination. FDR demonstrated that quite effectively.

And Roe? Overturning it removed a nationwide judicial restriction and returned regulatory authority primarily to the states. You can criticize what individual states did afterward, but decentralizing power hardly refutes my argument about centralized power.

The irony remains: you're trying to educate someone wary of government power by documenting exactly why that wariness exists.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're arguing against a position I never took. Government can protect civil rights, but it can also institutionalize discrimination. FDR demonstrated that quite effectively.

And Roe? Overturning it removed a nationwide judicial restriction and returned regulatory authority primarily to the states. You can criticize what individual states did afterward, but decentralizing power hardly refutes my argument about centralized power.

The irony remains: you're trying to educate someone wary of government power by documenting exactly why that wariness exists.

You can't revise history to hide the underlying intent of your responses.

Roe v. Wade gave ALL Americans the right of choice and confidentiality between patient, doctor and spouse (if any) as opposed to a minority that could afford such a procedure through wealth and/or connections. Prior to that, what you see in a few states today was national law. And while the WW2 internment camps were a disgrace, the New Deal did opened the door further for the lifestyle you and I enjoy right now.

You keep trying to bypass or rewrite the lesson of the OP and my posts ... that at one point in American history state government enacted racist laws with the federal government either indirectly or directly assisting or turning a blind legal eye to. Even with the government legally rectifying such later, the legacy of the racist laws still exist today, as successful lawsuits by the ACLU, NAACP and such will attest to.

You can't have it both ways, which is why the deregulation agenda since Reagan has resulted in the nonsense we deal with today. You can deny it, but the historicsl fscts debunk your views and declarations.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You can't revise history to hide the underlying intent of your responses.

Roe v. Wade gave ALL Americans the right of choice and confidentiality between patient, doctor and spouse (if any) as opposed to a minority that could afford such a procedure through wealth and/or connections. Prior to that, what you see in a few states today was national law. And while the WW2 internment camps were a disgrace, the New Deal did opened the door further for the lifestyle you and I enjoy right now.

You keep trying to bypass or rewrite the lesson of the OP and my posts ... that at one point in American history state government enacted racist laws with the federal government either indirectly or directly assisting or turning a blind legal eye to. Even with the government legally rectifying such later, the legacy of the racist laws still exist today, as successful lawsuits by the ACLU, NAACP and such will attest to.

You can't have it both ways, which is why the deregulation agenda since Reagan has resulted in the nonsense we deal with today. You can deny it, but the historicsl fscts debunk your views and declarations.

 

[zymurgy]

You can't revise history to hide the underlying intent of your responses.

Roe v. Wade gave ALL Americans the right of choice and confidentiality between patient, doctor and spouse (if any) as opposed to a minority that could afford such a procedure through wealth and/or connections. Prior to that, what you see in a few states today was national law. And while the WW2 internment camps were a disgrace, the New Deal did opened the door further for the lifestyle you and I enjoy right now.

You keep trying to bypass or rewrite the lesson of the OP and my posts ... that at one point in American history state government enacted racist laws with the federal government either indirectly or directly assisting or turning a blind legal eye to. Even with the government legally rectifying such later, the legacy of the racist laws still exist today, as successful lawsuits by the ACLU, NAACP and such will attest to.

You can't have it both ways, which is why the deregulation agenda since Reagan has resulted in the nonsense we deal with today. You can deny it, but the historicsl fscts debunk your views and declarations.

You're confusing individual choice with the distribution of government power.

Roe imposed a nationwide constitutional rule that restricted states from governing abortion according to their own laws. Dobbs removed that restriction and returned regulatory authority to elected lawmakers.

You can disagree with what individual states subsequently enacted, but that's an argument about how they exercise their authority, not a refutation of my argument about centralized power.

And once again, nothing you've said changes the federal government's documented role in institutionalizing racial discrimination.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're confusing individual choice with the distribution of government power.

Roe imposed a nationwide constitutional rule that restricted states from governing abortion according to their own laws. Dobbs removed that restriction and returned regulatory authority to elected lawmakers.

You can disagree with what individual states subsequently enacted, but that's an argument about how they exercise their authority, not a refutation of my argument about centralized power.

And once again, nothing you've said changes the federal government's documented role in institutionalizing racial discrimination.

Newsflash: FEDERAL laws can and do at times override state law in a variety of ways for the common good (auto standards, food quality, 5 day, 8 hour work week, socisl security, etc.) What YOU are doing is saying that its okay for one state to puposely enact heinous or substandard medical care for whatever reason.

Kind of antithetical to that bit in the Constitution about " ... general welfare of the people" and all, n'cest pas?

You have no argument other than some insipidly stubborn and failed attempts to bridge to the nonsense of Reaganomics and ignore the concluded reality of the OP. Carry on.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Newsflash: FEDERAL laws can and do at times override state law in a variety of ways for the common good (auto standards, food quality, 5 day, 8 hour work week, socisl security, etc.) What YOU are doing is saying that its okay for one state to puposely enact heinous or substandard medical care for whatever reason.

Kind of antithetical to that bit in the Constitution about " ... general welfare of the people" and all, n'cest pas?

You have no argument other than some insipidly stubborn and failed attempts to bridge to the nonsense of Reaganomics and ignore the concluded reality of the OP. Carry on.

You're still going with this retarded thread?
Hey man, you do you.
Most people would realize they fucked up and stop, but not you, no sir!
Not my circus, not my monkeys, baby!

 

[Sailor]

Supposedly TaiChi is a black he/she/it. Dumber than fuck and does zero justice to actual educated black people in this country. And worldwide. "African" Americans are hated by real blacks across this world for a reason.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Supposedly TaiChi is a black he/she/it. Dumber than fuck

.
Black or not, dumber than fuck.