Who What Now posted:

That's not a conclusion I'm jumping to, that's what you explicitly said.

blowfish posted:

It is a real problem that needs to be solved. The solution isn't "jail all swarthy immigrants", a conclusion to which you tellingly jump immediately. Like, if someone observes that blacks commit the majority of crimes in a city and proposes a solution that involves increased investment in community building programmes or infrastructure or whatever in high crime areas then is that still a racism

blowfish posted:

It is a conclusion you're jumping to, because I in fact didn't say it. Scroll back to my post and read it when your heart rate has normalised after this fit of righteous indignation.

snyprmag posted:

except that never loving happens and we do throw them all in jail, even if they don't actually commit more crime.

blowfish posted:

It is a conclusion you're jumping to, because I in fact didn't say it. Scroll back to my post and read it when your heart rate has normalised after this fit of righteous indignation.

drilldo squirt posted:

I believe you did.

blowfish posted:

It is a real problem that needs to be solved.

Who What Now posted:

if blacks commit the majority of the crimes maybe all blacks should be jailed

Main Paineframe posted:

When an electorate that's incapable of even acknowledging historical crimes against a group passes social programs, those social programs tend to be utterly ineffective at helping those groups. For example, history shows that race-blind social programs are a poor substitute for affirmative action and reparations - either the same biases that caused the inequities in the first place creep into the program intended to fix them and result in unofficial discrimination against that group, or people notice that the program is disproportionately benefiting that group and therefore gut the program either out of bias or out of resistance to anything reparations-like.

blowfish posted:

I believe the exact quote is

in response to

in which no reasonable person would take "it" to refer to black people, but you aren't a reasonable person and immediately assume the most racist interpretation is the correct one, reality be damned.

drilldo squirt posted:

You said it dude, don't lie.

blowfish posted:

ok quote it at me

blowfish posted:

ok quote it at me

blowfish posted:

[Blacks are] a real problem that needs to be solved.

drilldo squirt posted:

We've been over this blowfish.

blowfish posted:

No seriously, quote where I said black people are a problem, so everyone can see how bad you are at correctly understanding words my racism.

Who What Now posted:

blowfish posted:

in which no reasonable person would take "it" to refer to black people, but you aren't a reasonable person and immediately assume the most racist interpretation is the correct one, reality be damned.

blowfish posted:

No seriously, quote where I said black people are a problem, so everyone can see how bad you are at correctly understanding words my racism.

blowfish posted:

See, you actively had to edit it into a quote, because it isn't what I said. Therefore, my point still stands.

Who What Now posted:

I did. Do you not understand that your posts continue to exist after you post them?

Who What Now posted:

I edited it in to indicate what you actually meant in context. This is a common practice that you are only now taking an issue to. Golly I wonder why...

blowfish posted:

I like it when you use circular logic, e.g. everyone who disagrees with me is a racist, and everything they say is therefore racism, which makes them racist.

blowfish posted:

I like it when you use circular logic, e.g. everyone who disagrees with me is a racist, and everything they say is therefore racism, which makes them racist.

blowfish posted:

Yes but that's because Americans aren't sufficiently historically literate (or because America has too many assholes) to effectively implement policy to help disadvantaged groups such as many black people, not because the label of "reparations" wasn't slapped onto enough potentially functional policies or because the label of "reparations" wasn't slapped onto enough newly created do-nothing feelgood policies.

Giggle Goose posted:

I agree with you about this, but even in the face of such systemic problems, I think that it would be difficult to argue that in the long run, the lives of any underclass group in America haven't improved, in some cases enormously.
Therefore, wouldn't our best course of action be to continue to attempt to pursue policies that incrementally improve lives, even if the prejudices of the majority leak into them?

Your average voter doesn't have to admit to any unpleasant historical legacies for incremental improvement to happen and, as morally upsetting as that can feel, I think that from a practical perspective progressives would be much better off attempting to correct issues with current social programs and slowly introducing new ones, all while continuing the process of societal education that has moved the US from a slaveholder nation to the admittedly imperfect but unarguably improved state that we have today.

Edit: Clarity.

Giggle Goose posted:

You guys are going to get this thread closed with this narcissistic exchange. I for one am enjoying the substantive conversation that a few of us are having. Please, PMs exist for a reason.

blowfish posted:

Yes, this is quite reasonable. In fact,

I'd argue this tendency to needlessly moralise rather than argue about substantial things that can be done is on display over the last page or so.

blowfish posted:

Yes, this is quite reasonable. In fact,

I'd argue this tendency to needlessly moralise rather than argue about substantial things that can be done is on display over the last page or so.

Who What Now posted:

You said integration was empirically proven to be linked to societal wellness, and then your only link was a tabloid. But please, tell us more about talking about things that are substantial.