Why are Black rappers aligning themselves with the right? (Baby Boomers, millionaire, dollars)

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Well, for Black people living in the 1960s, this would mean little to them. When your own Constitutional rights are not being recognized, and you're being abused by your state government. libertarian principles aren't going to mean much to you. You're gong to be more concerned about who will put the state government in its place, and force it to respect your rights.

Understood, but as Horatio Bunce suggests to Col. Crockett....there is no "sorta pregnant."

Constitutional abuse today that favors Person/Group A will be constitutional abuse tomorrow that harms them, because once we say "sure, abuse the Constitution all you want, so long as..." all they hear is "sure, abuse the Constitution all you want." They don't hear anything after our implicit permission for them to do whatever they want, whether it comports with the rules or doesn't.

In 1964, that unconstitutional overreach was for the purpose of solving the very specific Woolworth lunch counter problem. It has now been morphed into all manner of government tyranny that forces the private citizen and business to do whatever they are commanded by whatever is the prevailing cultural narrative...wholly outside any bounds of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Goldwater predicted as much in 1964, and Affirmative Action alone proved him right within just a few years.

When you make exceptions, rules become meaningless, and you start paving the road to abject tyranny.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Well, like any other group, some are good and some are bad. Otherwise, it's a matter of PR.

There is something else I would like to point to. Some forms of discrimination have become much more passive-aggressive. On paper, discrimination is illegal. Housing discrimination is illegal. Job discrimination is illegal.

On the other hand, there are ways around this. You can get interviewed for a job, and have the qualifications. However, an employer just say "we chose someone" without telling you why. It's hard to tell if someone else was more qualified, or if racial discrimination played a role. Many years ago I ran into a city-data poster who said he wouldn't want to hire Blacks. Of course, if anyone ever said that to my face or your face, we can sue for discrimination.

Housing discrimination is more insidious these days. Before, someone could say "no Blacks allowed". Nowadays, you can't refuse a prospective buyer or renter based on race. What someone can do is charge a Black tenant a higher security deposit or rent than would be the case for anyone else. Not showing certain properties to Blacks while showing those same properties to other prospective buyers. No one can turn you away if you have the money and the credit. However, you can run into being treated a bit differently. It could be "Yes, we'll show you some homes, but we won't show you the best ones" or "Yes, we'll rent to you, but we'll charge you a higher rent than normal for the apartment".

I'm not saying this is widespread. I'm just saying the nature of discrimination is much more passive-aggressive than before.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

There is something else I would like to point to. Some forms of discrimination have become much more passive-aggressive. On paper, discrimination is illegal. Housing discrimination is illegal. Job discrimination is illegal.

On the other hand, there are ways around this. You can get interviewed for a job, and have the qualifications. However, an employer just say "we chose someone" without telling you why. It's hard to tell if someone else was more qualified, or if racial discrimination played a role. Many years ago I ran into a city-data poster who said he wouldn't want to hire Blacks. Of course, if anyone ever said that to my face or your face, we can sue for discrimination.

Housing discrimination is more insidious these days. Before, someone could say "no Blacks allowed". Nowadays, you can't refuse a prospective buyer or renter based on race. What someone can do is charge a Black tenant a higher security deposit or rent than would be the case for anyone else. Not showing certain properties to Blacks while showing those same properties to other prospective buyers. No one can turn you away if you have the money and the credit. However, you can run into being treated a bit differently. It could be "Yes, we'll show you some homes, but we won't show you the best ones" or "Yes, we'll rent to you, but we'll charge you a higher rent than normal for the apartment".

I'm not saying this is widespread. I'm just saying the nature of discrimination is much more passive-aggressive than before.

And any black business owner or property owner could do the exact same thing if they felt like it, with the only difference being they could be explicit and outspoken about it without fear of reprisal.

A black landlord could raise rents for whites if they wanted to, and could say "yeah, I charge white people more because eff white people," and they'd likely receive praise from the media-political complex for standing for social justice or some nonsense.

Same for a black employer. They could flat out say the refuse to hire white people, and all they need to do is toss out some social justice buzzwords like diversity, equity, justice, etc and again, probably make it on to the talk show circuit to get lavish praise heaped on them.

You clearly labor under the belief that only white people can be passive/aggressively racist or discriminatory, and further that only white people are employers, hiring managers or landlords.

Unlearn what you have learned.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Understood, but as Horatio Bunce suggests to Col. Crockett....there is no "sorta pregnant."

Constitutional abuse today that favors Person/Group A will be constitutional abuse tomorrow that harms them, because once we say "sure, abuse the Constitution all you want, so long as..." all they hear is "sure, abuse the Constitution all you want." They don't hear anything after our implicit permission for them to do whatever they want, whether it comports with the rules or doesn't.

In 1964, that unconstitutional overreach was for the purpose of solving the very specific Woolworth lunch counter problem. It has now been morphed into all manner of government tyranny that forces the private citizen and business to do whatever they are commanded by whatever is the prevailing cultural narrative...wholly outside any bounds of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Goldwater predicted as much in 1964, and Affirmative Action alone proved him right within just a few years.

When you make exceptions, rules become meaningless, and you start paving the road to abject tyranny.

This is the thing, Black Americans were living under tyranny anyway. Their Constitutional rights were not being respected in most places. What was going to stop in its tracks the rampant racial discrimination and tyranny that Blacks were being subjected to over the last 200+ years?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

And any black business owner or property owner could do the exact same thing if they felt like it, with the only difference being they could be explicit and outspoken about it without fear of reprisal.

A black landlord could raise rents for whites if they wanted to, and could say "yeah, I charge white people more because eff white people," and they'd likely receive praise from the media-political complex for standing for social justice or some nonsense.

Same for a black employer. They could flat out say the refuse to hire white people, and all they need to do is toss out some social justice buzzwords like diversity, equity, justice, etc and again, probably make it on to the talk show circuit to get lavish praise heaped on them.

You clearly labor under the belief that only white people can be passive/aggressively racist or discriminatory, and further that only white people are employers, hiring managers or landlords.

Unlearn what you have learned.

What ???? You just argued a hypothetical and then tried to claim someone needs to unlearn a belief you placed in your hypothetical that that person clearly never stated .

When you do things like that's it's time to take a break from this site and touch grass, because now you are just making up worse case scenarios in your head and pretending someone actually did it /support it

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

There is something else I would like to point to. Some forms of discrimination have become much more passive-aggressive. On paper, discrimination is illegal. Housing discrimination is illegal. Job discrimination is illegal.

On the other hand, there are ways around this. You can get interviewed for a job, and have the qualifications. However, an employer just say "we chose someone" without telling you why. It's hard to tell if someone else was more qualified, or if racial discrimination played a role. Many years ago I ran into a city-data poster who said he wouldn't want to hire Blacks. Of course, if anyone ever said that to my face or your face, we can sue for discrimination.

Housing discrimination is more insidious these days. Before, someone could say "no Blacks allowed". Nowadays, you can't refuse a prospective buyer or renter based on race. What someone can do is charge a Black tenant a higher security deposit or rent than would be the case for anyone else. Not showing certain properties to Blacks while showing those same properties to other prospective buyers. No one can turn you away if you have the money and the credit. However, you can run into being treated a bit differently. It could be "Yes, we'll show you some homes, but we won't show you the best ones" or "Yes, we'll rent to you, but we'll charge you a higher rent than normal for the apartment".

I'm not saying this is widespread. I'm just saying the nature of discrimination is much more passive-aggressive than before.

I think it's more about class than race - and one's financial resume' (credit score, assets, liabilities, income).

I have had no issues.

[Chowhound]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

There is something else I would like to point to. Some forms of discrimination have become much more passive-aggressive. On paper, discrimination is illegal. Housing discrimination is illegal. Job discrimination is illegal.

On the other hand, there are ways around this. You can get interviewed for a job, and have the qualifications. However, an employer just say "we chose someone" without telling you why. It's hard to tell if someone else was more qualified, or if racial discrimination played a role. Many years ago I ran into a city-data poster who said he wouldn't want to hire Blacks. Of course, if anyone ever said that to my face or your face, we can sue for discrimination.

Housing discrimination is more insidious these days. Before, someone could say "no Blacks allowed". Nowadays, you can't refuse a prospective buyer or renter based on race. What someone can do is charge a Black tenant a higher security deposit or rent than would be the case for anyone else. Not showing certain properties to Blacks while showing those same properties to other prospective buyers. No one can turn you away if you have the money and the credit. However, you can run into being treated a bit differently. It could be "Yes, we'll show you some homes, but we won't show you the best ones" or "Yes, we'll rent to you, but we'll charge you a higher rent than normal for the apartment".

I'm not saying this is widespread. I'm just saying the nature of discrimination is much more passive-aggressive than before.

I agree in the sense that discrimination can occur in subtle ways and in ways that you probably can't ever really prove.

So many companies now are actively working to hire non-whites, especially businesses that deal with government contracts. A few years ago, I was interviewing for a new job and the guy I was talking to asked me if I was native American. I'm white with dark hair and eyes but I tan well and I have long hair in a ponytail, so this guy was thinking that maybe I was native.

I could visually see his disappointment for a brief flash when I told him that I wasn't native American. He was the company owner, and I could see that he was looking to tick off a box for government contracts. I know this because his company is a direct competitor to the company I would up working for.

This company I work for is very "woke", I get emails from the chief Diversity officer fairly often. We just had a large companywide event centered around DEI.

It's almost like the pendulum is swinging the other direction and all of the cool kids now are not white. I'm not whining or claiming any kind of discrimination toward me directly, but the writing is on the wall here. White straight men are the one group you can openly talk crap about and no one says a word.

I understand the larger history of blacks in this country, I get that, but let's not pretend it's 1950 anymore. Black people, any one for that matter all have a shot at the middle class if you follow a path and put in a bit of effort.

You've got blacks from around the world, largely in Africa that are dying to get a shot here. People from here aren't dying to go to Africa and other nations along those lines simply because they understand the opportunities available here.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

I think it's more about class than race - and one's financial resume' (credit score, assets, liabilities, income).

I have had no issues.

Agree. I've been renting property for 24 year. Show me an applicant with a 700-credit score, gross income 3.5 time monthly rent and at least a year at current job ...it's all good.

However, to avoid the race card from being played I screen applicants through messaging so there is a paper trail. If all looks good, I set up a time to show them the rental.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

What ???? You just argued a hypothetical and then tried to claim someone needs to unlearn a belief you placed in your hypothetical that that person clearly never stated .

When you do things like that's it's time to take a break from this site and touch grass, because now you are just making up worse case scenarios in your head and pretending someone actually did it /support it

The narrative of racism is an invention of hypotheticals, and I used examples where the actors are switched. The point I was making was the assumption of hypothetical racism only working one way, from one specific group to only one other specific group. It's a nonsense trope, not a reality.

Why can the person accusing all white people of racism trot out every worst case hypothetical scenario, but any other worst case hypothetical in the same framework is poo poo'd with an appeal to ridicule defelction?

Unlearn the hypotheticals based on stereotypes and traditions, themselves caricatures and exaggerations of actual events. That was the point.

Actual racism can be done by anyone of any race to anyone of any race. But actual racial discrimination, where people of any race are actually excluded, barred, banned, etc from something...exceedingly rare for the last half century, and almost always a perception of imagined grievance.

It is the king of all individual deflection tactics. If there is an individual truth you just refuse to accept, cry racism and get that blame off you. Green_mariner uses the boilerplate examples. You are qualified, thus the only way the white employer didn't hire you is based on that employer's racism towards blacks. And this has so many unfounded, trope-y assumptions, it's laughable.

• Assumption 1 - only white people are employers who make hiring decisions.
• Assumption 2 - white people choosing candidates use race to discriminate against blacks.
• Assumption 3 - the black applicant wasn't just equally qualified as the other non-black applicants, they were more qualified, hence race being the only possible disqualifier.

So I suggest that under the assumptive hypothetical models, can't black people be employers who make hiring decisions? Can't black employers use race to discriminate against whites? Can't all applicants have different qualification and fit levels for a particular job? Etc.

The thing to be "unlearned" is these assumptions that ONLY white people can be racists, and that ANY TIME something negative happens to black people, it is because of racist white people, and that in every scenario where choosing (using discrimination properly to select a single thing from a group of similar things) happens, ANY/EVERY time a black person is not chosen, it must be because of racism and no other possible reason. Unlearn these worn out tropes peddled by Grievance Inc.

The real world isn't the racist hellscape so often advertised.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Why can the person accusing all white people of racism trot out every worst case hypothetical scenario, but any other worst case hypothetical in the same framework is poo poo'd with an appeal to ridicule defelction?

.

The answer is in fact that your argument is a scenario that hasn't happened , where as even the Trump administration prosecuted white landlords for discrimination against black tenants