Systemic Racism

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

21 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

 

 

 

Well? I can’t find it.

You said prejudice. I lump it in with the others. You really are being very Shonuffian these days. 

[Cdub100 3,380]

Systemic Racism at work right here. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Systemic Racism at work right here. 

 

63rd and Lexington. Not the hood. They have expanded their hunting ground. Guarantee this POS is a repeat offender and has been arrested recently and let out with no bail or released from Rikers because of Covid. 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

7 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You said prejudice. I lump it in with the others. You really are being very Shonuffian these days. 

I said your statement I wasn’t questioning your character, you are being very snowflakey

And prejudicial statement. what do you call someone who can’t admit they are wrong? You are not looking good here

[Utilit99 4,099]

27 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Systemic Racism at work right here. 

 

If this guy got shot the librals would really miss him.

[FeelingMN 273]

7 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No, my point is if two different people commit the same crime they should be prosecuted regardless of race. That’s what makes it not racist, and fair.  With the voting, if a white person didn’t meet the requirements spelled out in that bill, would they still be allowed to vote? Calling it unfair may be true. Calling it racist doesn’t hold up.  

The judge ruling on the case called it racist:

 

Quote

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id. Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.

 

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

 

So calling it racist does in fact hold up.  Or are we against the Rule of Law when we disagree with it?

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, FeelingMN said:

The judge ruling on the case called it racist:

 

 

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

 

So calling it racist does in fact hold up.  Or are we against the Rule of Law when we disagree with it?

Racism.  

[Cdub100 3,380]

Racist white man preventing a black man from getting paid.

https://neighbors.ring.com/n/nBVREpx1ZG

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

14 hours ago, FeelingMN said:

The judge ruling on the case called it racist:

 

 

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

 

So calling it racist does in fact hold up.  Or are we against the Rule of Law when we disagree with it?

Judges are not infallible. As a matter of fact, they continually get things wrong, as evidenced by all the rulings that are overturned. But you, not the judge, have not shown why it’s racist. Again, if a white person failed to meet   the criteria spelled out in the bill, would they be allowed to vote? Answer that and I’ll accept your point. 

[Voltaire 4,559]

16 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

 

I haven't read this whole thread has anyone explained what systemic racism is?

It's invisible. The left says you don't see it because it's all pervasive everywhere. The right says you don't see it because it doesn't exist. If the left could provide concrete examples, the right would have already joined them in getting rid of it long ago so they just keep it amorphous. Also, affirmative action is the remedy for systemic racism so we need massively more affirmative action type programs everywhere.

[Voltaire 4,559]

15 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You really are being very Shonuffian these days. 

I noticed that too, like somebody hijacked BB's account.

[drobeski 3,061]

Racist?

[Baker Boy 1,485]

3 hours ago, Voltaire said:

I noticed that too, like somebody hijacked BB's account.

It looks like the bored wants to know. 

I was testing the waters, trying to put myself in Peenie’s spot and I understand her frustration. When someone outside “the club” raises points that they don’t agree with, they immediately go into attack mode, change the narrative and refuse to admit they are doing it. I even got an alias to come out to back himself up. 

 The board is what it is and it was this way long before I got here. I knew this when I started posting. I am not suggesting the board change, because this is a public forum, if people don’t like it they can leave. It serves a purpose for all of us, for me it is entertainment and exposure to things I am not familiar with. There are plenty of other places someone can go to find two way discussions. It did show Racism toward Peenie is not a factor because I was treated the same way. I tried living on the other side. If you choose me for your next target that is fine. 
 

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

41 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

It looks like the bored wants to know. 

I was testing the waters, trying to put myself in Peenie’s spot and I understand her frustration. When someone outside “the club” raises points that they don’t agree with, they immediately go into attack mode, change the narrative and refuse to admit they are doing it. I even got an alias to come out to back himself up. 

 The board is what it is and it was this way long before I got here. I knew this when I started posting. I am not suggesting the board change, because this is a public forum, if people don’t like it they can leave. It serves a purpose for all of us, for me it is entertainment and exposure to things I am not familiar with. There are plenty of other places someone can go to find two way discussions. It did show Racism toward Peenie is not a factor because I was treated the same way. I tried living on the other side. If you choose me for your next target that is fine. 
 

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I don’t think I attacked you. Do you? 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

I don’t think I attacked you. Do you? 

No

[Cdub100 3,380]

20 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Systemic Racism at work right here. 

 

Good news everyone. This man was arrested and promptly released thanks to NYC not holding pre-trial suspects.

This future astronaut can now go to school or work. I'm sure he's moved past his 14 previous arrests and this 15th time is the last time.

#BLM #Democrats #Diversity is our strength.

[Casual Observer 597]

58 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

It looks like the bored wants to know. 

I was testing the waters, trying to put myself in Peenie’s spot and I understand her frustration. When someone outside “the club” raises points that they don’t agree with, they immediately go into attack mode, change the narrative and refuse to admit they are doing it. I even got an alias to come out to back himself up. 

 The board is what it is and it was this way long before I got here. I knew this when I started posting. I am not suggesting the board change, because this is a public forum, if people don’t like it they can leave. It serves a purpose for all of us, for me it is entertainment and exposure to things I am not familiar with. There are plenty of other places someone can go to find two way discussions. It did show Racism toward Peenie is not a factor because I was treated the same way. I tried living on the other side. If you choose me for your next target that is fine. 
 

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

You post like Hawkeye.  This post has a very FBG vibe to it.  Several of us noticed your posts in this thread were out of character with your prior posts.

[nobody 2,039]

13 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Racist white man preventing a black man from getting paid.

https://neighbors.ring.com/n/nBVREpx1ZG

White people being hunted.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

37 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

You post like Hawkeye.  This post has a very FBG vibe to it.  Several of us noticed your posts in this thread were out of character with your prior posts.

How so? Explain?

I got the out of character references, which it was,  but I was only listing examples. The  only thing I backed up was school choice which I do agree with but the board turned it into charter schools which I never mentioned.

ETA: I think Affirmative Action Is the best example.

[Casual Observer 597]

30 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

How so? Explain?

I got the out of character references, which it was,  but I was only listing examples. The  only thing I backed up was school choice which I do agree with but the board turned it into charter schools which I never mentioned.

ETA: I think Affirmative Action Is the best example.

We're not going back and forth here.  It has a FBG vibe because in that Gulag, people expressing an opinion often apologize for offending someone for expressing the opinion.

[FeelingMN 273]

14 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Judges are not infallible. As a matter of fact, they continually get things wrong, as evidenced by all the rulings that are overturned. But you, not the judge, have not shown why it’s racist. Again, if a white person failed to meet   the criteria spelled out in the bill, would they be allowed to vote? Answer that and I’ll accept your point. 

Not only has this bill not been overturned, it has been blocked twice from becoming law.  And both times because it was discriminatory in nature.  It is not Jim Crow and doesn't specifically address blacks and so yeah, if a white person failed to meet the criteria they would have a harder time voting.  For every one white person, there are more blacks.....which is why the bill was struck down because it disproportionately affected blacks.

By your line of thinking the IRS under Obama wasn't really targeting conservative groups because leftist groups were nabbed as well.  Doesn't make any sense.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,644]

5 minutes ago, FeelingMN said:

Not only has this bill not been overturned, it has been blocked twice from becoming law.  And both times because it was discriminatory in nature.  It is not Jim Crow and doesn't specifically address blacks and so yeah, if a white person failed to meet the criteria they would have a harder time voting.  For every one white person, there are more blacks.....which is why the bill was struck down because it disproportionately affected blacks.

By your line of thinking the IRS under Obama wasn't really targeting conservative groups because leftist groups were nabbed as well.  Doesn't make any sense.

My line of reason is that a group of  people were being targeted. But not because of their race, but because of how they vote. It’s different, and you should see that.  

[drobeski 3,061]

22 minutes ago, FeelingMN said:

Not only has this bill not been overturned, it has been blocked twice from becoming law.  And both times because it was discriminatory in nature.  It is not Jim Crow and doesn't specifically address blacks and so yeah, if a white person failed to meet the criteria they would have a harder time voting.  For every one white person, there are more blacks.....which is why the bill was struck down because it disproportionately affected blacks.

By your line of thinking the IRS under Obama wasn't really targeting conservative groups because leftist groups were nabbed as well.  Doesn't make any sense.

So you're admitting Obama had his IRS specifically target conservative groups. 

Good job, you've finally come to recognize the criminality of the Obama administration.  That's just one tiny dose of it. 

[FeelingMN 273]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

My line of reason is that a group of  people were being targeted. But not because of their race, but because of how they vote. It’s different, and you should see that.  

My viewpoint isn't why this racist bill got shot down.  It's the judge's.  She made it pretty clear the bill was racist.  Given the history of suppressing the black vote, and the audacity of these legislators to mine minority voting data before drafting the bill, pretty easy to connect the dots.  

Is it any wonder why blacks vote Democrat?  Maybe things would change if more Republicans spoke out about it.

[Casual Observer 597]

2 hours ago, FeelingMN said:

My viewpoint isn't why this racist bill got shot down.  It's the judge's.  She made it pretty clear the bill was racist.  Given the history of suppressing the black vote, and the audacity of these legislators to mine minority voting data before drafting the bill, pretty easy to connect the dots.  

Is it any wonder why blacks vote Democrat?  Maybe things would change if more Republicans spoke out about it.

I read the predecessor case, NC NAACP v. McCrory, from the District Court.  Here is an excerpt from the case:

"Meanwhile, while the mandate and preliminary injunction were stayed by the Supreme Court, North Carolina held its 2014 general election, the third election under SL 2013–381. Compared to the last comparable midterm general election, 2010, voter participation increased: among registered white voters, it increased from 45.7% to 46.8%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 40.4% to 42.2%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 19.9% to 20.5%. (Def. Ex. 309 at 66.) Not only did African American turnout increase more than other groups in 2014 with SL 2013–381 in place, but that general election saw the smallest white-African American turnout disparity in any midterm election from 2002 to 2014. (Id. at 62; Pl. Ex. 229 at 7.)"

 

So, despite these "onerous" restrictions, black voter participation actually increased over the prior election, with the allegedly racist legislation being enacted in between the two elections.  Then the case goes to the 4th Circuit Curt of Appeals where the legislation is overturned as targeting black voters with "surgical precision".  Tell me again what is going on here?

[BirdGang 312]

Is this the systematic racism we are talking about?

https://mobile.twitter.com/odonnell_r/status/1300437401387573252?s=10

[listen2me 23 1,542]

On 8/29/2020 at 9:08 AM, Baker Boy said:

Correct, but if you look at it either way it is an example of Systemic racism. Isn’t that what the OP is looking for? This is an example both sides should agree on for the opposite reason. Is it Racism because the vote is being suppressed or is it Racism because they are implying the people are to dumb to get an ID.

Am I getting the purpose of this thread wrong?

 

Sure.  I guess.  Quite a leap.

Laws should be in place to give everyone free cable and free internet.  If you are too poor to read or listen up on the candidates then you are suppressing the vote.  Anyone who wants to go to one of the conventions should be flown for free to these events.  Otherwise we are suppressing the vote.  Anyone without a car should be individually picked up and brought back from voting station free of charge.  With a paid for babysitter and a free lunch.  Otherwise we are suppressing the vote.

We could go all day with this.  

[Baker Boy 1,485]

15 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

Sure.  I guess.  Quite a leap.

Laws should be in place to give everyone free cable and free internet.  If you are too poor to read or listen up on the candidates then you are suppressing the vote.  Anyone who wants to go to one of the conventions should be flown for free to these events.  Otherwise we are suppressing the vote.  Anyone without a car should be individually picked up and brought back from voting station free of charge.  With a paid for babysitter and a free lunch.  Otherwise we are suppressing the vote.

We could go all day with this.  

This thread is not about justification, it is about examples of why people believe Systemic Racism exists in the country. I never heard anyone refer to your examples. HTH

[FeelingMN 273]

15 hours ago, Casual Observer said:

I read the predecessor case, NC NAACP v. McCrory, from the District Court.  Here is an excerpt from the case:

"Meanwhile, while the mandate and preliminary injunction were stayed by the Supreme Court, North Carolina held its 2014 general election, the third election under SL 2013–381. Compared to the last comparable midterm general election, 2010, voter participation increased: among registered white voters, it increased from 45.7% to 46.8%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 40.4% to 42.2%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 19.9% to 20.5%. (Def. Ex. 309 at 66.) Not only did African American turnout increase more than other groups in 2014 with SL 2013–381 in place, but that general election saw the smallest white-African American turnout disparity in any midterm election from 2002 to 2014. (Id. at 62; Pl. Ex. 229 at 7.)"

 

So, despite these "onerous" restrictions, black voter participation actually increased over the prior election, with the allegedly racist legislation being enacted in between the two elections.  Then the case goes to the 4th Circuit Curt of Appeals where the legislation is overturned as targeting black voters with "surgical precision".  Tell me again what is going on here?

Quote

 

In addition to this general statutory prohibition on racial discrimination, Congress identified particular jurisdictions “covered” by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby Cty., 133 S. Ct. at 2619. Covered jurisdictions were those that, as of 1972, had maintained suspect prerequisites to voting, like literacy tests, and had less than 50% voter registration or turnout. Id. at 2619-20. Forty North Carolina jurisdictions were covered under the Act. 28 C.F.R. pt. 51 app. (2016). As a result, whenever the North Carolina legislature sought to change the procedures or qualifications for voting statewide or in those jurisdictions, it first had to seek “preclearance” with the United States Department of Justice. In doing so, the State had to demonstrate that a change had neither the purpose nor effect of “diminishing the ability of any citizens” to vote “on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (2012) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973c).

During the period in which North Carolina jurisdictions were covered by § 5, African American electoral participation dramatically improved. In particular, between 2000 and 2012, when the law provided for the voting mechanisms at issue here and did not require photo ID, African American voter registration swelled by 51.1%. J.A. 8041 (compared to an increase of 15.8% for white voters). African American turnout similarly surged, from 41.9% in 2000 to 71.5% in 2008 and 68.5% in 2012. J.A. 1196-97. Not coincidentally, during this period North Carolina emerged as a swing state in national elections. Then, in late June 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County. In it, the Court invalidated the preclearance coverage formula, finding it based on outdated data. Shelby Cty., 133 S. Ct. at 2631. Consequently, as of that date, North Carolina no longer needed to preclear changes in its election laws. As the district court found, the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County, the “Republican Chairman of the [Senate] Rules Committee[] publicly stated, ‘I think we’ll have an omnibus bill coming out’ and . . . that the Senate would move ahead with the ‘full bill.’” N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 2016 WL 1650774, at *9 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2016). The legislature then swiftly expanded an essentially single-issue bill into omnibus legislation, enacting it as Session Law (“SL”) 2013-381.2

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used. Id. at *9-10, *37, *123, *127, *131. Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law. Id. at *136-38. 

This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A. 2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess. Id.; J.A. 3653, 2115, 2292.

 

The above is from the ruling I linked above.  Black voting did go up when Shelby was in place.  When that was repealed, the law in question was proposed.  It was clearly designed to affect the Black vote.

[Casual Observer 597]

5 minutes ago, FeelingMN said:

The above is from the ruling I linked above.  Black voting did go up when Shelby was in place.  When that was repealed, the law in question was proposed.  It was clearly designed to affect the Black vote.

The restrictive law you're complaining about was enacted in 2013.  Black voting participation went up from 2010, when the law was not in effect, to 2014, when the law was in effect (those being comparable mid-term election years).  This is in addition to the Black voting registration gains and participation from 2000, which are cited in your excerpt.  Here we have actual facts, that the claimed effect of the new voting restrictions that they would inhibit Black voting did not inhibit Black voting participation at all.  And since we're talking about Courts, which deal with evidence (facts) and the evidence showed none of the claimed Black voting inhibition, I ask you again what was really going on here?

[Utilit99 4,099]

No such thing.

[Strike 3,975]

57 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

This thread is not about justification, it is about examples of why people believe Systemic Racism exists in the country. I never heard anyone refer to your examples. HTH

I re-read the OP.  I suggest you do the same.  I don't get from it what you're saying here.  The OP is asking for examples of ACTUAL systemic racism, not what people claim or perceive as systemic racism.  For one thing, much of the claimed systemic racism is simply people playing politics.  Secondly, I don't think anyone here  cares what someone PERCEIVES as racism.  A lot of people perceive racism where there is none.  Peenie is a great example.  An example of systemic racism would be if we had a law that said black people can't vote.  That's obviously systemic and racism.  That's what the OP is looking for.  So, the whole premise you've been basing your posts in this thread on is wrong.  I guess that's not unexpected since you claim to have been emulating Peenie.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

1 hour ago, Baker Boy said:

This thread is not about justification, it is about examples of why people believe Systemic Racism exists in the country. I never heard anyone refer to your examples. HTH

 

17 minutes ago, Strike said:

I re-read the OP.  I suggest you do the same.  I don't get from it what you're saying here.  The OP is asking for examples of ACTUAL systemic racism, not what people claim or perceive as systemic racism.  For one thing, much of the claimed systemic racism is simply people playing politics.  Secondly, I don't think anyone here  cares what someone PERCEIVES as racism.  A lot of people perceive racism where there is none.  Peenie is a great example.  An example of systemic racism would be if we had a law that said black people can't vote.  That's obviously systemic and racism.  That's what the OP is looking for.  So, the whole premise you've been basing your posts in this thread on is wrong.  I guess that's not unexpected since you claim to have been emulating Peenie.

Perimeters set up in the OP

Quote

Members

 1,218

33,767 posts

Report post

 

Posted Thursday at 10:40 AM

I see this all the time mentioned as a catch-all but I can’t quite put my finger on where it applies in 2020.  1960? Sure of course, but today?

1.  I’m really trying to understand and am not being facetious.

2.  Is Systemic the same as Institutional Racism.

It is real to them, that is the point. How is the OP  going to understand it you don’t list the reasons why people are using the term? 

I didn’t use the word perceive you did, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean other people don’t.

[Strike 3,975]

12 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

 

Perimeters set up in the OP

It is real to them, that is the point. How is the OP  going to understand it you don’t list the reasons why people are using the term? 

I didn’t use the word perceive you did, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean other people don’t.

When people believe something that isn't true, that is their perception of it.   The OP did not ask for what people believed.  He asked for what was true.  You're just looking more and more ridiculous with each post you make.

[FeelingMN 273]

43 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

The restrictive law you're complaining about was enacted in 2013.  Black voting participation went up from 2010, when the law was not in effect, to 2014, when the law was in effect (those being comparable mid-term election years).  This is in addition to the Black voting registration gains and participation from 2000, which are cited in your excerpt.  Here we have actual facts, that the claimed effect of the new voting restrictions that they would inhibit Black voting did not inhibit Black voting participation at all.  And since we're talking about Courts, which deal with evidence (facts) and the evidence showed none of the claimed Black voting inhibition, I ask you again what was really going on here?

 

Quote

The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

Actual facts

[KSB2424 3,083]

46 minutes ago, Strike said:

I re-read the OP.  I suggest you do the same.  I don't get from it what you're saying here.  The OP is asking for examples of ACTUAL systemic racism, not what people claim or perceive as systemic racism.  For one thing, much of the claimed systemic racism is simply people playing politics.  Secondly, I don't think anyone here  cares what someone PERCEIVES as racism.  A lot of people perceive racism where there is none.  Peenie is a great example.  An example of systemic racism would be if we had a law that said black people can't vote.  That's obviously systemic and racism.  That's what the OP is looking for.  So, the whole premise you've been basing your posts in this thread on is wrong.  I guess that's not unexpected since you claim to have been emulating Peenie.

Exactly.  

[KSB2424 3,083]

Is there racism in America? I.e are individuals racist in America?  Yes.

is there still Institutional racism in America? Not so sure, working out any examples. Hence this particular thread.

[Casual Observer 597]

10 minutes ago, FeelingMN said:

 

Actual facts

"North Carolina held its 2014 general election, the third election under SL 2013–381."  See the 2013 right after the SL?  That's the year of the legislation.  See the discussion of voting in 2014 under SL 2013-381?  They can't be talking about black voting under restrictions in 2014 for legislation that went into effect in 2016.  That's just a reading comprehension fail.  There's later legislation that NC enacted to comport with a State Constitutional amendment that are pretty much the same as SL 2013-381.  The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals also ignored the evidence of lack of racial impact in declaring that legislation unconstitutional.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

When people believe something that isn't true, that is their perception of it.   The OP did not ask for what people believed.  He asked for what was true.  You're just looking more and more ridiculous with each post you make.

You are not judge and jury here, they believe you perceive their accusations are not legitimate.
 

I can’t find where the OP asked for what is true. Maybe you perceived it?

I am fine with my stance and have the OP to back me up. You continue to try to change the narrative because your assumptions of perception and things that are true are not part of the OP. You can’t back up you assumptions with quotes from the OP which makes you the ridiculous one.

 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

12 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Exactly.  

But I can’t find where you stated that in the OP.