The Democrat Utopia

[RedDenver]

I’m not sure you actually understand what either of are saying.  I looked at the study you shared and had a basic thought that you don’t have an answer for aside from basically saying they have no chance since our country had a racist past.  Past being the key word.  It’s as if someone who is poor is just shut out of luck I guess.

You're basically saying that since the laws themselves no longer actually ban minorities like they used to, things are all better now. Like the Civil Rights Act waved a magic wand and everything wrong for hundreds of years was suddenly fixed. That's not how the real world works. Even after the laws were changed, things like hiring practices for example hired far more whites into executive positions than minorities (similar for men vs women). Things are certainly better now than they were when laws banning minorities for living in certain places existed, but improvement isn't the same as fixed.

 The minority families that I know well and are doing good financially now who came from inner city KCK don’t actually exist I guess.  My new Vietnamese neighbor who came from nothing doesn’t actually exist.  My old Indian neighbor who’s family is dirt poor in India doesn’t exist. 

The old "I have a black friend" response. You are citing anecdotes against studies that are about entire communities. It's laughable if it weren't so sad.

 

[Archy1221]

The old "I have a black friend" response. You are citing anecdotes against studies that are about entire communities. It's laughable if it weren't so sad.

What’s sad is your discounting real world examples for studies that had holes poked in them and are really no longer relevant.  Yes you are laughable when you do this.  keep pretending people barely have a chance in life.  
 

 

[RedDenver]

The same law could have implications for a Loudoun superintendent or principal in the wake of a May 28 alleged sexual assault in a bathroom — an incident first reported by The Daily Wire Monday. On June 22, Superintendent Scott Ziegler told the public, “To my knowledge, we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”

Virginia law requires that “Reports shall be made to the division superintendent and to the principal or his designee on all incidents involving … sexual assault.”

Thanks. Then I agree the superintendent shouldn't have lied and should face the consequences - probably fired.

None of that changes the transgender issues that's at the heart of why right-wing media is spending so much time on this though.

 

[RedDenver]

What’s sad is your discounting real world examples for studies that had holes poked in them and are really no longer relevant.  Yes you are laughable when you do this.  keep pretending people barely have a chance in life.  

The study I linked is from 2018. Citing a few examples from your life doesn't even come close to poking holes in studies about millions of people. I should have known you'd double down though since in your own mind you can't ever be wrong.

 

[Archy1221]

The study I linked is from 2018. Citing a few examples from your life doesn't even come close to poking holes in studies about millions of people. I should have known you'd double down though since in your own mind you can't ever be wrong.

When does the data come from for the study.  Possibly I’m confusing the one you linked to from one just before or after your link.  

 

[RedDenver]

When does the data come from for the study.  Possibly I’m confusing the one you linked to from one just before or after your link.  

Maybe you should read the study.

 

[Archy1221]

Maybe you should read the study.

I did.  Was trying to clarify it was the correct one and looking back it was as I responded to it.  And unless I missed something, there is no data to suggest that any policy or law from the past 30-40 years is making these neighborhoods less desirable.  
 

Everything seems to date back to pre-WWII era from what I gather and they extrapolate that to why these neighborhoods are downtrodden (even the white ones!) 

So I shall ask again, what is preventing the second or third generation past that time period from attaining their dreams?  What law, mandate, policy prevents them from improving their lives?  White, Black, Asian, Hispanic…doesn’t matter.  

 

[RedDenver]

I did.  Was trying to clarify it was the correct one and looking back it was as I responded to it.  And unless I missed something, there is no data to suggest that any policy or law from the past 30-40 years is making these neighborhoods less desirable.  
 

Everything seems to date back to pre-WWII era from what I gather and they extrapolate that to why these neighborhoods are downtrodden (even the white ones!) 

So I shall ask again, what is preventing the second or third generation past that time period from attaining their dreams?  What law, mandate, policy prevents them from improving their lives?  White, Black, Asian, Hispanic…doesn’t matter.  

You keep insisting the only laws can cause or sustain systemic racism. That's false. And why do you think only the last 30-40 years is what matters? That's less than a single lifetime. Redlining laws were on the books until after WW2 some remaining until the 1970's.

The biggest predictor of wealth for anyone is the wealth of their parents followed by the wealth of the region they grow up in. It's going to take generations to undo what was done in the past because the effects stretch for generations. And that's exactly what the study shows.

And there's other forms of systemic racism besides laws. For example, hiring practices have long had issues with racism:

The Racism of the ‘Hard-to-Find’ Qualified Black Candidate Trope

New research shows racial discrimination in hiring is still happening at the earliest stages

 

[Lorewarn]

Tell me you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation without telling you having nothing of substance to add to the conversation. 

Substance?

Is going back and forth for 100 posts in every single argument obstinately blithering dozens of iterations of, "Show me where I said that. Thanks", and, "I've already told you", and, "You're really saying that... {something they didn't say}" what you consider substance in a conversation? By the time I come back to this thread you'll have wasted another two posts arguing that you didn't insist on what someone claimed you insisted on, hiding behind a defense of only asking questions and not making assertions. But clearly you're asking the questions rhetorically and you already know the answers to them, just waiting for someone to answer them wrong.

If they claim you said something, you'll say, "I didn't say that."

If they ask if you're saying this, you'll say, "Where did I ever say that?"

If they don't engage with your questions because they're a trap, you'll say, "Okay, I'll ask the question again <copy paste>"

If they do engage with your questions, you won't meet them halfway but will always find whatever you can to be contrarian.

It's a slippery successful debating tactic, but it's not substantive conversation. 

 

[Archy1221]

You keep insisting the only laws can cause or sustain systemic racism. That's false. And why do you think only the last 30-40 years is what matters? That's less than a single lifetime. Redlining laws were on the books until after WW2 some remaining until the 1970's.

The biggest predictor of wealth for anyone is the wealth of their parents followed by the wealth of the region they grow up in. It's going to take generations to undo what was done in the past because the effects stretch for generations. And that's exactly what the study shows.

And there's other forms of systemic racism besides laws. For example, hiring practices have long had issues with racism:

The Racism of the ‘Hard-to-Find’ Qualified Black Candidate Trope

New research shows racial discrimination in hiring is still happening at the earliest stages

One of the key problems: There are elite computer science departments that graduate larger numbers of African-American and Hispanic students, but they are not the ones where leading companies recruit employees. Stanford, UC-Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, UCLA and MIT are among the most popular for recruiting by tech companies, according to researchby Wired magazine.

 

[Archy1221]

You keep insisting the only laws can cause or sustain systemic racism. That's false. And why do you think only the last 30-40 years is what matters? That's less than a single lifetime. Redlining laws were on the books until after WW2 some remaining until the 1970's.

The biggest predictor of wealth for anyone is the wealth of their parents followed by the wealth of the region they grow up in. It's going to take generations to undo what was done in the past because the effects stretch for generations. And that's exactly what the study shows.

And there's other forms of systemic racism besides laws. For example, hiring practices have long had issues with racism:

The Racism of the ‘Hard-to-Find’ Qualified Black Candidate Trope

New research shows racial discrimination in hiring is still happening at the earliest stages

This guy gets it.  The tech companies aren’t racist.  What they are is comfortable recruiting from a select few programs because they have had success with that talent pool.  Wall Street does the same thing.  
 

the crazy part is outside of Princeton and maybe Columbia, an Ivy League educating isn’t any better than many top public universities.  What students pay for isn’t the education at Ivy League , it’s more so the alumni networking.  Those Ivy graduate programs are what sets them apart.  More companies should realize this similar to Intel (shown in the article) 

I mean, how many UNL graduates are getting jobs offers in Silicon Valley?  Not too many out of the gates  I suspect.  Is that because of racism? Or that Silicon Valley doesn’t think too highly of UNL?  

 

[Archy1221]

Substance?

Is going back and forth for 100 posts in every single argument obstinately blithering dozens of iterations of, "Show me where I said that. Thanks", and, "I've already told you", and, "You're really saying that... {something they didn't say}" what you consider substance in a conversation? By the time I come back to this thread you'll have wasted another two posts arguing that you didn't insist on what someone claimed you insisted on, hiding behind a defense of only asking questions and not making assertions. But clearly you're asking the questions rhetorically and you already know the answers to them, just waiting for someone to answer them wrong.

If they claim you said something, you'll say, "I didn't say that."

If they ask if you're saying this, you'll say, "Where did I ever say that?"

If they don't engage with your questions because they're a trap, you'll say, "Okay, I'll ask the question again <copy paste>"

If they do engage with your questions, you won't meet them halfway but will always find whatever you can to be contrarian.

It's a slippery successful debating tactic, but it's not substantive conversation. 

Will you ever be providing substantive posts?  Or do you prefer to just post false statements?  
 

your last two haven’t been very promising. 

 

[Lorewarn]

Shot, chaser.

 

[Archy1221]

"Show me where I said that. Thanks", and, "I've already told you", and, "You're really saying that... {something they didn't say}"

Hmmmm…it looks like you are saying that I defend myself from people stating things I didn’t say, then a few short words later claim I put words in people’s mouths.  So is it possible that people do the same to me, so I ask them to show where I said that?  Or does that only work one way?   
 

If they claim you said something, you'll say, "I didn't say that."

If I didn’t say it, why would I admit to saying it?  That would be strange. 
 

If they ask if you're saying this, you'll say, "Where did I ever say that?"

What am I supposed to say, “no but thanks for putting words in my mouth”.  Am I the only one on the board that makes those two statements?  Have you?  
 

If they don't engage with your questions because they're a trap, you'll say, "Okay, I'll ask the question again

Really no idea what you are saying here, but blather away.  Do I not answer people’s questions on here?  Maybe I shouldn’t going forward because it may be trap!!

 

[Ulty]

The tech companies aren’t racist.  What they are is comfortable recruiting from a select few programs because they have had success with that talent pool.  Wall Street does the same thing.  

These practices just perpetuate a system that only benefits the members of that particular pool, while missing out on more diverse talent and limiting opportunities to others.

This is where some of the hard work comes in when it comes to diversity and inclusion. We (meaning everyone) need to be intentional when it comes to D&I, and it can start with hiring practices. Recruit and advertise with broader and more diverse talent pools. Looks at knowledge, skills, and abilities moreso than who someone's personal connections are. Diverse workforces are more innovative and more productive.

The people I have known in the tech industry, including the IT division on my own campus, are some of the most inclusive and diverse people I have known. Generally a very good group. But hiring practices need to be adjusted to improve diversity (if you actually value that sort of thing), instead of just going back to the same pools and same practices that have always been done.