Warbler

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint. It seems all that matters to you whether a black person has a issue with something, is doesn’t seem to matter to you whether the complaint is actually reasonable or not. If a black person said that the term Eagles was racist, you’d demand The Philadelphia Eagles change their names.

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

SilverWook said:

If they’d only had a permit!

You do realize that John Adams defended the British Soldiers in court and got them acquitted, right?

CatBus said:

Confederate statues are, to me, more akin to statues of Timothy McVeigh than Washington or Jefferson.

I am not sure it is valid to compare Confederates to the likes of Timothy McVeigh. A lot of people boil the Confederacy down to slavery and racism. I am willing to bet the truth is a bit more complicated.

DominicCobb said:

As for Washington and Jefferson, it would not surprise me if some wish to tear down their statues. They were slave owners. I’m sure some view them as nothing but slave owning racists.

Washington and Jefferson brought this country together. Lee and the rest tore it apart, and fought against it. Poor comparison.

I wasn’t saying I agreed with the idea, just that some people probably do.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

What did Trump do now?

Reverted to his original “both sides are to blame” steaming elephant dungpile argument and suggested statues of Washington and Jefferson could be torn down next, as they were slave owners. The usual crazy talk.

I don’t know. I don’t know all the details about what exactly happens. Obviously, these neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK are scum, evil racist scum. But, there is this ideal: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. While I can’t stand the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, they have the right to peacefully protest. If you want to peacefully protest them, that is fine. I encourage peaceful protest of the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK. I might even be will to join such a protest. But, violent protest crosses the line. Its seems that some of the people protesting the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent. That is illegal and should be condemned. If the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent first, that is also illegal and should be condemned. I guess the big question is which side started the violence? Of course, the driver that ran people over should have the book thrown at them. I will agree, Trump was way too slow in condemning the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, but I think he may have a point in that both sides are to blame for the violence that occurred. This not to say that both are equally to blame, just that both share some of the blame. I guess for once I sort of agree with Trump. Of course if the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK would wake up and smell the sh** they’ve been shoveling for years, things would be a lot better.

Seriously warb? Obviously violence from either side should be condemned (by the way, definitely seems like the whiteys were more the belligerents), but that’s not really the issue here.

As I made clear after this comment. I had no idea exactly how the violence started. I have no trouble believing the “whiteys” as you call them were the more belligerent.

Right to protest or not, it shouldn’t be hard for the president to in the strongest possible way condemn white supremacists and disavow them - even if they hadn’t become violent, there shouldn’t be any hesitation to speak against neo-Nazis.

You’ll get no argument from me on that.

I wish that were that case.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

What did Trump do now?

Reverted to his original “both sides are to blame” steaming elephant dungpile argument and suggested statues of Washington and Jefferson could be torn down next, as they were slave owners. The usual crazy talk.

I don’t know. I don’t know all the details about what exactly happens. Obviously, these neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK are scum, evil racist scum. But, there is this ideal: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. While I can’t stand the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, they have the right to peacefully protest. If you want to peacefully protest them, that is fine. I encourage peaceful protest of the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK. I might even be will to join such a protest. But, violent protest crosses the line. Its seems that some of the people protesting the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent. That is illegal and should be condemned. If the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent first, that is also illegal and should be condemned. I guess the big question is which side started the violence? Of course, the driver that ran people over should have the book thrown at them. I will agree, Trump was way too slow in condemning the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, but I think he may have a point in that both sides are to blame for the violence that occurred. This not to say that both are equally to blame, just that both share some of the blame. I guess for once I sort of agree with Trump. Of course if the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK would wake up and smell the sh** they’ve been shoveling for years, things would be a lot better.

The white supremacists were the first people to be violent. They were also, mostly, the only people to get violent.

ok, I didn’t know exactly how the violence started.

Apparently neither did Trump.

If I were the President of the United States, I probably would have found out by now.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

What did Trump do now?

Reverted to his original “both sides are to blame” steaming elephant dungpile argument and suggested statues of Washington and Jefferson could be torn down next, as they were slave owners. The usual crazy talk.

I don’t know. I don’t know all the details about what exactly happens. Obviously, these neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK are scum, evil racist scum. But, there is this ideal: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. While I can’t stand the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, they have the right to peacefully protest. If you want to peacefully protest them, that is fine. I encourage peaceful protest of the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK. I might even be will to join such a protest. But, violent protest crosses the line. Its seems that some of the people protesting the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent. That is illegal and should be condemned. If the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent first, that is also illegal and should be condemned. I guess the big question is which side started the violence? Of course, the driver that ran people over should have the book thrown at them. I will agree, Trump was way too slow in condemning the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, but I think he may have a point in that both sides are to blame for the violence that occurred. This not to say that both are equally to blame, just that both share some of the blame. I guess for once I sort of agree with Trump. Of course if the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK would wake up and smell the sh** they’ve been shoveling for years, things would be a lot better.

The white supremacists were the first people to be violent. They were also, mostly, the only people to get violent.

ok, I didn’t know exactly how the violence started.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

What did Trump do now?

Reverted to his original “both sides are to blame” steaming elephant dungpile argument and suggested statues of Washington and Jefferson could be torn down next, as they were slave owners. The usual crazy talk.

I don’t know. I don’t know all the details about what exactly happens. Obviously, these neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK are scum, evil racist scum. But, there is this ideal: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. While I can’t stand the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, they have the right to peacefully protest. If you want to peacefully protest them, that is fine. I encourage peaceful protest of the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK. I might even be will to join such a protest. But, violent protest crosses the line. Its seems that some of the people protesting the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent. That is illegal and should be condemned. If the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK got violent first, that is also illegal and should be condemned. I guess the big question is which side started the violence? Of course, the driver that ran people over should have the book thrown at them. I will agree, Trump was way too slow in condemning the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK, but I think he may have a point in that both sides are to blame for the violence that occurred. This not to say that both are equally to blame, just that both share some of the blame. I guess for once I sort of agree with Trump. Of course if the neo-nazis/white supremacists/KKK would wake up and smell the sh** they’ve been shoveling for years, things would be a lot better.

As for Washington and Jefferson, it would not surprise me if some wish to tear down their statues. They were slave owners. I’m sure some view them as nothing but slave owning racists.

yhwx said:

God damn it. We had him then we lost him.

Or we never really had him in the first place.

?

The state of this country and the whole world depresses me, a lot.

What did Trump do now?

Jeebus said:

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346544-dreamhost-claims-doj-requesting-info-on-visitors-to-anti-trump-website

Holy shit. Is this legal? Can they really just do that?

“The warrant, dated July 12, says that authorities will seize any information constituting violations of D.C. code governing riots that involve individuals connected to the protests on Inauguration Day.”

Peaceful protesting is protected under the Constitution, rioting is not.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Were you opposed to reparations for Japanese Americans interred during WW2 ?

While I do not agree with the argument, I have heard it argued that many of the Japanese Americans that were unfairly interred were still alive when the reparations were given. Those that were slaves are all dead and have been for years.

Did the death tax only apply to white people? What about rich black people? Surely they didn’t earn their wealth via slavery. What about white families that clearly earned their wealth after slavery was ended?

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what?

Well, I have lots of opinions on this matter, but the one most topical is this: if you have a time, 50 years ago when redlining was legal, and a time 100 years ago when murder was tolerated and even encouraged in the form of lynching, and 150 years ago when slavery was legal, that is a lot of time to build up a pretty substantial reservoir of unearned, unfair, unjustified advantage. And if you have a system that allows those ill-gotten gains to legally be transferred people living in the present even though the means used to accumulate that wealth is no longer legal… well, you’ve got a problem.

I think it is wrong to simply label everything that white people have today as ill-gotten.

Me too, which is why I so carefully tagged only those gains made via slavery, etc as ill-gotten, though they are substantial. I think this moots the rest of your questions, so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m not so sure it does.

However, how do you determine, of the stuff white people have today, what is and is not an ill gotten gain via slavery? What about those white people whom are decedents of people who came to America after slavery was ended?

I feel like you are trying to get a clear answer, and there isn’t one for a lot of this stuff. The real question is, when faced with tough questions like this, do we default to ‘leave it as is, its too damn hard to figure out’, or do we struggle to find a solution that is better? Our approach to finding an answer matters more than our answer sometimes.

I am open to Affirmative Action if that is what you mean, but I don’t think I am open to passing a law requiring all white people to give 50% of all they own to someone who is non-white. I am also open to suggestions.

CatBus said:

Would you agree that wealth earned from slavery is ill-gotten wealth? If so, we’re pretty much in agreement.

Again what exactly is wealth earned from slavery? Also if my ancestors were slave owners, it is not my fault. I would agreed wealth earned directly from slavery is ill-gotten, but wealth that earned from slavery and then passed down from father to son to daughter to son to son to daughter to daughter to son. I don’t know. Again one could argue that all of America is ill gotten. Does that mean we should end the country and go back to Europe?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what?

Well, I have lots of opinions on this matter, but the one most topical is this: if you have a time, 50 years ago when redlining was legal, and a time 100 years ago when murder was tolerated and even encouraged in the form of lynching, and 150 years ago when slavery was legal, that is a lot of time to build up a pretty substantial reservoir of unearned, unfair, unjustified advantage. And if you have a system that allows those ill-gotten gains to legally be transferred people living in the present even though the means used to accumulate that wealth is no longer legal… well, you’ve got a problem.

I think it is wrong to simply label everything that white people have today as ill-gotten.

Me too, which is why I so carefully tagged only those gains made via slavery, etc as ill-gotten, though they are substantial. I think this moots the rest of your questions, so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m not so sure it does.

However, how do you determine, of the stuff white people have today, what is and is not an ill gotten gain via slavery? What about those white people whom are decedents of people who came to America after slavery was ended?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what?

Well, I have lots of opinions on this matter, but the one most topical is this: if you have a time, 50 years ago when redlining was legal, and a time 100 years ago when murder was tolerated and even encouraged in the form of lynching, and 150 years ago when slavery was legal, that is a lot of time to build up a pretty substantial reservoir of unearned, unfair, unjustified advantage. And if you have a system that allows those ill-gotten gains to legally be transferred people living in the present even though the means used to accumulate that wealth is no longer legal… well, you’ve got a problem.

I think it is a bit more complicated than you make it. I think it is wrong to simply label everything that white people have today as ill-gotten. There are all sorts of ways people got what they have and it is not 100% due to slavery, lynching, jim crow, and discrimination. Also remember just because those things existed, does not mean that White people did not have to work hard to get what they have.

There is no single solution to this problem. However, we are living with the consequences of not solving it.

Tell me, have you told your parents not to leave you any of their “ill-gotten” stuff when they die and instead give to people of minority races?

Do you think we should to give all of America back to the Native Americans and move back to Europe?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

If you want something nice, you have to earn enough money and buy it. We don’t give mansions away for free.

In our system, you don’t have to earn any money at all to get what you want, due to a thing called inheritance.

Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what? My mom gave me my father’s ring when he died. You trying to say that was wrong? We should have given the ring to a total stranger who was non-white?

We do indeed give away mansions for free. After being born a multi-millionaire, you can spend your life pissing it away like Trump (he’d actually be much richer today if he’d just invested the wealth he had as an infant in a diversified fund), or you can be born a multi-millionaire and build on it like Bill Gates. But would you have done as well had you not had multiple millions of dollars when you were still in diapers?

That is the way a free market works. However, I do see your point when comes to the social-economic effects of slavery and years of jim crow and discrimination. Maybe it is a good reason for things like affirmative action.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

corellian77 said:

Warbler said:

What do you mean by “current injustices that are derived from these things?” How do you wipe out the legacy of slavery?

As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

I think a few people (CatBus, DominicCobb, and suspiciouscoffee) have already done a good job of responding to this, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents. You ask how racism/segregation is still prevalent in American society, and you have twice answered your own question. If the ability to live in “nice neighbourhoods” and attend “good schools” is contingent on having the money to make such things possible, and if certain races generally don’t have access to such money, then this is a form of racism/segregation.

I disagree. We live a capitalistic system. The free market. If you want something nice, you have to earn enough money and buy it. We don’t give mansions away for free.

Now one might argue that anyone, regardless of race, has the opportunity to make enough money to live where they wish and attend whatever school they wish, but if society is set up to keep people in their existing socioeconomic class, and if people in lower socioeconomic classes are generally minorities, therein lies the institutional racism mentioned earlier.

But is that the way society is set up in America? It might very difficult to move up a socioeconomic class, but it is doable. For example, there are all sorts of social problems to help people who can’t afford it, to get into college.

If a child lives in a poor neighbourhood and attends a poor school due to his family not having enough money to do otherwise, then the child himself is likely to grow up and find himself in the same boat. The cycle perpetuates itself, not because any one person is saying, “Don’t live here” and “Go to school there,” but simply because society makes it difficult to escape one’s current class, and due to American history, many racial minorities find themselves in the lower class.

There are many poor white people in the country and the cycle perpetuate itself there too. But with both white and black poor, there is the chance to work one’s way out of being poor. It is not easy, but it has been done.

This is the heart of it all. Black people are especially disadvantaged economically due to decades and decades of racial injustices of all different kinds. It surely is possible to move up, but it is very, very difficult (for many reasons). This is essentially though whole reason why things like affirmative action exist.

You bring up good points here.

If I shuffle a non-trick deck of cards and pick four cards at random, is there any guarantee that I will get 1 card of each suit?

corellian77 said:

Warbler said:

What do you mean by “current injustices that are derived from these things?” How do you wipe out the legacy of slavery?

As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

I think a few people (CatBus, DominicCobb, and suspiciouscoffee) have already done a good job of responding to this, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents. You ask how racism/segregation is still prevalent in American society, and you have twice answered your own question. If the ability to live in “nice neighbourhoods” and attend “good schools” is contingent on having the money to make such things possible, and if certain races generally don’t have access to such money, then this is a form of racism/segregation.

I disagree. We live a capitalistic system. The free market. If you want something nice, you have to earn enough money and buy it. We don’t give mansions away for free.

Now one might argue that anyone, regardless of race, has the opportunity to make enough money to live where they wish and attend whatever school they wish, but if society is set up to keep people in their existing socioeconomic class, and if people in lower socioeconomic classes are generally minorities, therein lies the institutional racism mentioned earlier.

But is that the way society is set up in America? It might very difficult to move up a socioeconomic class, but it is doable. For example, there are all sorts of social problems to help people who can’t afford it, to get into college.

If a child lives in a poor neighbourhood and attends a poor school due to his family not having enough money to do otherwise, then the child himself is likely to grow up and find himself in the same boat. The cycle perpetuates itself, not because any one person is saying, “Don’t live here” and “Go to school there,” but simply because society makes it difficult to escape one’s current class, and due to American history, many racial minorities find themselves in the lower class.

There are many poor white people in the country and the cycle perpetuate itself there too. But with both white and black poor, there is the chance to work one’s way out of being poor. It is not easy, but it has been done.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

And don’t even get started with the lunchroom. That was discouraging.

Do tell.

It was terrible. You know how I know about 30% of my school was comprised of minorities when only about four of them were ever in any of my classes? Because an aerial view of the lunchroom would easily have shown that a 30% contiguous chunk of it was occupied by minorites, while another 70% contiguous chunk was entirely white kids. Pretty much zero mixing except at the sparsely-occupied border tables (read: poor white kids like my friends, who, I’ll be honest, were frequently racist as shit, but they didn’t have the money to sit elsewhere). The side of the lunchroom with the outdoor view? White (and rich). Now this was probably exaggerated by “you sit by your classroom friends and the classrooms are segregated, so of course the lunchroom is segregated” but shit. Every single day it’s right there in the open for everyone to see, and every single day it’s normal. Late eighties, Ohio.

Was it against the rules of the school for black kids to sit in the area with the view? Did one have to pay to sit at this “rich” table? If it was voluntary, I am not sure what should be done, short of making rule requiring each student to sit next to a kid of different race at lunch.

Still beats the other district I attended which had the only black family move in while my sister was in high school. They got a cross burned in their yard, and didn’t stay.

Now that is depressing. You would think by now that kind of thing would no longer happen.