Quantcast
Why is the United States so segregated?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why is the United States so segregated?

the-pi-guy said:
DonFerrari said:
Man just to give a very quick point to guys...
If SJW and NGO doesn't point at "new issues" and just accept that things on political and law is already taken care, they won't have a reason to exist anymore and they would stop making money out of it... so they will keep pushing minorities down, saying indirectly that they are inferior and need protection so they can keep existing.

The issues aren't taken care of.  These issues are documented. Even conservatives in the US confirm these issues, they just disagree why they are happening.  Conservatives in the US tend to blame fatherless black families for these issues. 

 

Very few people are making money off this, if any are at all. 

 

These movements are not telling people they are inferior, indirectly or otherwise .

IS there any law, regulation or policy discriminating against minorities? No. Are there some that discriminate in favor of them? There is.

And sorry that you believe people don't monetize and have a well life based on saying minorities are discriminated instead of finding a job and producing something.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Man just to give a very quick point to guys...
If SJW and NGO doesn't point at "new issues" and just accept that things on political and law is already taken care, they won't have a reason to exist anymore and they would stop making money out of it... so they will keep pushing minorities down, saying indirectly that they are inferior and need protection so they can keep existing.

"Rich/capitalist, white, male patriarchy" is code for Jews within some of the Left.

SpokenTruth said: 
Seventizz said:

Did you read it?  What's not ridiculous about his comments?

Well, I did ask you first.

"Hopefully ... an African-American becomes President in 2020"

Either he thinks African-Americans inherently make better Presidents than white/asian/hispanic people or he's playing the averages with a sample size of 1. Both are pretty racist.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

adisababa said:
US is still alright for the most part, but UK is a whole other beast. Over there, I've been told to get out of the metro twice, once by some old drunk and second by a group of teens because of my ethnicity, granted they were mostly drunks but it still isn't a comfortable feeling when you're told that.

The west, including (and especially) the USA and UK are by far the most tolerant parts of the planet.   Eastern Europe, Asia the most racist... easily!

Where are you from?



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Ka-pi96 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Uh, yes...a perspective that is race based.  He claims it doesn't exist because his race does not experience it. He didn't say it doesn't exist after he's done research on the matter.

Him not having done research on the matter is purely an assumption on your part, not as if he should really need to though, the burden of proof should lie on the one claiming something exists. I just can't get over how ridiculous it is to dismiss somebody's opinion on something just because they haven't "experienced it". Do you also think only those that claim to have seen ghosts are worth listening to when discussing the existence of ghosts?

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

Pyro as Bill said:
SpokenTruth said: 

Well, I did ask you first.

"Hopefully ... an African-American becomes President in 2020"

Either he thinks African-Americans inherently make better Presidents than white/asian/hispanic people or he's playing the averages with a sample size of 1. Both are pretty racist.

Or he's hoping for someone very opposite of Trump.  If I said I'd like to see a female president in 2020...am I being sexist?  Or am I, like he, simply looking for something more progressive?  Something not the status quo?  Something socially positive? 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Him not having done research on the matter is purely an assumption on your part, not as if he should really need to though, the burden of proof should lie on the one claiming something exists. I just can't get over how ridiculous it is to dismiss somebody's opinion on something just because they haven't "experienced it". Do you also think only those that claim to have seen ghosts are worth listening to when discussing the existence of ghosts?

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

You didn't though. You gave evidence that it may exist, but not definitive proof of anything. If 10 white people and 10 black people apply for a job and the company hires only 5 white people, does that prove racism? No, not at all. There's a possibility that racism was involved, but it certainly doesn't prove it. The only people that would know for sure whether racism was involved would be the people who made the hiring decisions, but they're certainly not going to admit it, are they? If some of those black people claim they never got the job due to racism, are they right? Possibly. If those white people who did get the job deny that racism was involved, are they right? Also possibly. So if they're both possibly right why only listen to one of them rather than considering both perspectives?

For the green/purple people, why take either of them at face value? Why not ask why one group can see ghosts and the other can't? Why not question if what the green people are seeing are really ghosts? And that translates to the real world as well. If a black person claims something is racist, maybe it is, but just because they say it's racist doesn't make it so. And if a white person claims something isn't racist, maybe they are saying that because they lack information on the topic, but maybe it's also because it isn't actually racist, them being white doesn't make them automatically wrong.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network

VAMatt said:

There absolutely, definitely is a historical racism issue that still effects black Americans (and, to a less extent, other minorities) today.  No question about it.  Just like there are still rich Rockefellers riding off of the money their family made 6-8 generations ago, so to are there poor people stuck in the lack of education/poverty spiral.   

With that said, that fact, in and of itself, says nothing about racism in the USA today.  

PSintend0 said:

Strong division between poor and rich is linked to racism. Poor neighbourhoods having darker people and rich neighbourhoods being more whitish doesn´t help to eradicate racism, it makes it more difficult. In the past some thought that darker skin made you less of a human and that justified slavery. The present is build on the past.

VAMatt said:

Yeah, that's what I just said.

I meant that part. I think that it definetely in and of itself also says something about racism in the USA today. Things that happened in the past have long lasting effects.

The spiral of poverty/lack of education doesn´t have to be that strong. Education can be made free for people and be payd from taxes so it helps to even things out and create more equal opportunities (same thing for healthcare).



Ka-pi96 said:
SpokenTruth said:

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

You didn't though. You gave evidence that it may exist, but not definitive proof of anything. If 10 white people and 10 black people apply for a job and the company hires only 5 white people, does that prove racism? No, not at all. There's a possibility that racism was involved, but it certainly doesn't prove it. The only people that would know for sure whether racism was involved would be the people who made the hiring decisions, but they're certainly not going to admit it, are they? If some of those black people claim they never got the job due to racism, are they right? Possibly. If those white people who did get the job deny that racism was involved, are they right? Also possibly. So if they're both possibly right why only listen to one of them rather than considering both perspectives?

So you skimmed one article.  Gotcha.  You're the one asking for statistics and I provide you with research on it and you're still denying it.  And it's not just limited to hiring practices.  Mortgages, the justice system, education, financial mobility, politics, health care, the environment, etc.....  It goes on and on if you just research it...or check the links a little more.

Let me ask it this way.  What seems more likely to you?  A system that once enslaved blacks for 400 years, had blatant laws against them up until just 50 years go, only gave women the right to vote 100 years ago, put Asians in internment camps 70 years ago is now perfectly balanced or an entire minority is making up perceived slights against them?  You have to remember, there are a lot of people still in power that had power before the Civil Rights era. 

Another question.  Do you even know any black people in America?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Him not having done research on the matter is purely an assumption on your part, not as if he should really need to though, the burden of proof should lie on the one claiming something exists. I just can't get over how ridiculous it is to dismiss somebody's opinion on something just because they haven't "experienced it". Do you also think only those that claim to have seen ghosts are worth listening to when discussing the existence of ghosts?

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

Pyro as Bill said:

"Hopefully ... an African-American becomes President in 2020"

Either he thinks African-Americans inherently make better Presidents than white/asian/hispanic people or he's playing the averages with a sample size of 1. Both are pretty racist.

Or he's hoping for someone very opposite of Trump.  If I said I'd like to see a female president in 2020...am I being sexist?  Or am I, like he, simply looking for something more progressive?  Something not the status quo?  Something socially positive? 

Gotcha, A black or a woman is more socially positive... white man are very negative.

But we aren't racist over here.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

SpokenTruth said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Him not having done research on the matter is purely an assumption on your part, not as if he should really need to though, the burden of proof should lie on the one claiming something exists. I just can't get over how ridiculous it is to dismiss somebody's opinion on something just because they haven't "experienced it". Do you also think only those that claim to have seen ghosts are worth listening to when discussing the existence of ghosts?

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

Pyro as Bill said:

"Hopefully ... an African-American becomes President in 2020"

Either he thinks African-Americans inherently make better Presidents than white/asian/hispanic people or he's playing the averages with a sample size of 1. Both are pretty racist.

Or he's hoping for someone very opposite of Trump.  If I said I'd like to see a female president in 2020...am I being sexist?  Or am I, like he, simply looking for something more progressive?  Something not the status quo?  Something socially positive? 

Affirmative action is the last thing you need for the highest position in the world.  The best ‘person’ for the job is the only way to go and with Trump, the position has been appropriately filled.  He’s done more good for the average American than Obama has done in 8 years.  That is simply a fact.

’progressive’  Get out of here with that crap.



SpokenTruth said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Him not having done research on the matter is purely an assumption on your part, not as if he should really need to though, the burden of proof should lie on the one claiming something exists. I just can't get over how ridiculous it is to dismiss somebody's opinion on something just because they haven't "experienced it". Do you also think only those that claim to have seen ghosts are worth listening to when discussing the existence of ghosts?

And I proved it exists already.  As for the ghost example, only if the experience of ghosts are a condition of something (race, age, gender, etc...) and that those outside that condition are incapable of seeing them.  Consider this, if only green people see ghosts and a purple person says ghosts don't exist, how likely are you to consider the experience of purple people for the existence of ghosts?  Not their research of ghosts but their experience with them as grounds for their dismissal of their existence.

Pyro as Bill said:

"Hopefully ... an African-American becomes President in 2020"

Either he thinks African-Americans inherently make better Presidents than white/asian/hispanic people or he's playing the averages with a sample size of 1. Both are pretty racist.

Or he's hoping for someone very opposite of Trump.  If I said I'd like to see a female president in 2020...am I being sexist?  Or am I, like he, simply looking for something more progressive?  Something not the status quo?  Something socially positive? 

Guys, Dark_Lord_2008's posting history suggests that he's said everything on every spectrum.