state of the onion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Jan 31, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    "Black Americans in areas like Ferguson, Missouri don't have access to the same lending as white Americans."
    So that's compared to whites living in Ferguson?
    Both similar economic situations and similar neighborhoods and property values? Apples to apples?
    When buying a home, your appraisal can play a role in determining if your lender will approve your loan.
    https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-learning/how-appraisals-affect-mortgage/
    If crime rates increase, home values drop and lending dries up for everyone seeking to buy in those neighborhoods.
    And the most hyper-segregated cities have been controlled by Democrats for decades. http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/05/which_us_cities_have_become_the_most_hyper_segrega.html
    Again. Do police track crimes by culture? No, no stats on that?
    Again. There are sub-cultures of whites that display very similar problems.
    Again. Does poverty preclude morality or responsibility?
    Only if you want to play the dubious game that morally reprehensible arguments reflect nothing on the arguer.
    Are you really claiming such arguments could be made by a non-racist?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes. Standard research procedure. Why do you ask?
    The racism present in the appraisal scandals of the most recent Republican Crash - in 2007/2008, if you missed it, everything around you is still suffering from it - was as clearly evident as the other malign features of the mortgage and lending industry.
    Somebody owns the real estate in Ferguson, and most of those who did not inherit it bought it with borrowed money and/or used it as collateral. "Lending" did not "dry up" in Ferguson.

    Treating the effects of racism as the causes of racism is standard racist bs - cliché stuff, run of the mill, familiar for centuries now. Are you going to post the entire stinking mess, the whole Book of the Klan, for our reading pleasure

    on a science forum?

    What won't you post if you will post this kind of Limbaugh/Hannity bs:
    So?
    Gerrymandering was not invented yesterday. Neither was segregation. The setting of the boundaries of cities and enforcement of the racial composition of suburbs is a matter of recorded history and common knowledge. So is the partisan political landscape of the United States, including the Partisan inheritance of the Confederacy and the Partisan change of the 1970s. Why are you posting that here?
    Oh, they can. Yes, they often do indeed.
    But you, of all people, do not want to go there.
    This, for example, the two word response in bold:
    is an example of someone "arguing" by repeating a falsehood, in this case after multiple corrections that removed all possibility of unawareness. A deliberate dishonesty, in other words, repeated indefinitely in lieu of argument. A standard agitprop tactic, that is also a moral offense - and not a trivial one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Attacking the message and not the messenger, or, as Billvon has it, the argument and not the arguer, has long been a principle at Sciforums. It has always suffered the flaw you describe; we have also, over the years, observed that it is not so much of an ad hom personal attack if a point happens to be true. In your case, people who have been around the community for a long time are noticing something that wearies them; your behavior really is merely yet another reiteration of a blank-slate pretense of earnest innocence that just happens to abide predictable political tropes, and that is why you face such doubts.

    Once upon a time a moderator executed a one-time rule to silence objections to something he posted by arguing it a personal attack to describe arguments bearing false witness and targeting ethnicity as racist. And let us be clear: His intent was that people should be able to post racist material without facing the very conundrum you describe; he should be able to denounce Mexicans according to false witness without anyone calling his fake argument racist.

    In this case, responding to a point about murders "directly by white supremacists explicitly so motivated" by pointing to general crime statistics, such as I your argument↗, is a well-known trope of American racism.

    Consider how clear your example must be; DaveC↑ and I have some serious differences about how we see questions of supremacism; so do Iceaura↑ and I; these aren't necessarily small aesthetic-political differences either. Even Spidergoat↑ and I can have at it from time to time.

    And you are so far out into the range, there isn't any real question.

    To wit, you are already in the range of denying your own arguments↑—(you did, after all, argue, "Evidence all the black people who are successful. Or don't you believe there are any?", so denouncing↑ Spidergoat's↑ counterpoint, that arguing "black communities suffer no negative effects from racism because Oprah is ridiculous", as a "completely fabricated straw man" is utterly ridiculous)—which only reminds everyone else that even you find yourself unreliable)—which might well be a sign of trolling but, behaviorally, is derived from bully supremacism in prior generations.

    Same stuff, different day. Meet the new, same as the old. It's all the same, only the names have changed. Same same but different. One more time around.

    Certes, one must imagine Sisyphus happy, but there is a difference between that and infliction. As acts of will, their effects have profound implications.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Point of order (neutral):

    Vociferous: It would be helpful in communicating if you stated your assertions outright, and avoided phrasing them as questions for the respondent to sort out your implications.
    Examples, here:
    "Again. Do police track crimes by culture? No, no stats on that? "
    "Again. Does poverty preclude morality or responsibility?"

    If we had all the time we need to use those questions as the seed for a mini-discussion in our heads, where we assume what your answer to those questions would be, and then respond to our assumptions, it would be great. But we don't - certainly not with the number of respondents involved and the pace at which the thread is evolving. The discussion will be more concise and fruitful if you just state your assertions directly. Or at least state the question and then provide your own answers (which is the same ting as stating your assertions directly.)

    The best way to win an argument is to be understood concisely and without ambiguity. In my opinion.

    This is not a criticism or an admonishment; just a genuine desire to have the thread be productive and ensure your intentions are understood.

    Carry on.
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Wrong. If a person is on the autistic spectrum, and their argument is attacked on these grounds, it is an ad hom. If a person takes psychiatric medications, and the argument is attacked on these grounds, it is an ad hom. The attack consists in assuming the personal traits of the arguer somehow invalidate the argument being made. Hence the need to even mention them at all. The traits may be factual, but there is no evidence they detract from the argument. It is a fallicious assumption, and is still an ad hom.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Except it wasn't assuming personal traits; it was attacking the things the poster actually posted i.e. the argument.

    The fact that the argument has been heard before, and identified as to its origin, and rejected, does not mean any personal traits of the poster were assumed.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Tell me how that in any sense supports the statement I was debating:

    "we have also, over the years, observed that it is not so much of an ad hom personal attack if a point happens to be true."
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I quoted the part where you were wrong.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    So you are claiming the attack was made on the argument and not the poster. How does that invalidate my argument?
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I don't disagree. Part of my operating instinct, after years at this site and using social media in general, is that the whole point of the particular behavior we are witnessing is in fact to waste time and distract discussion.

    There are some declining outlooks in society whereby the best societal discourse is to talk about something else. We see it a lot where traditionalism and associated privilege are in decline or facing persuasive revolutionary challenge.

    It's almost an instinctive infinite-monkeys idea; in seeding such pointless questions, maybe a sympathetic script will emerge, a classic, lost, hidden, forgotten justification of all things simply awaiting the right genius to uncover, because just like we humans are supposed to be the apple of God's eye in a Universe this vast, there is a circumstance they just can't explain to us by which the bullies and thieves of history really were the proverbial good guys. And if, in the end, the question is whether the sonofabitch had it coming, most people don't attend function, but, rather, socialization, permission, and approval, so some bullying and thievery gets resolved faster than others.

    To wit, you already recognize Vociferous makes perfect sense if we accept the underlying racist presuppositions. And that's all it is. Repetition and stalling in hopes that the signal will find some response that saves them all. I've witnessed a particular "discussion", over the years, keep doing this, falling deeper and deeper into questions that make sense if we would just agree to the presuppositions and thereby render the whole discussion moot, and after a decade a particular "argument" of circumstance—("in favor" or "against" depending on which iteration of which version of the question)—quite literally has not moved.

    Squeaky wheels and wasted time. If you go 'round the circle enough, someone will eventually ask you why you're such an unreasonable SJW snowflake. (Why? Something about a law or principle of averages.)
     
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    From a political organization (Fabian Society) in the UK. But I didn't ask about crime, I asked about murder.
    Why do you keep conflating to two? Do you think they are morally equivalent?
    No, that study says, "While median family income is a crucial factor, lending is concentrated in majority white neighborhoods and scarce in majority African American neighborhoods." Not the same neighborhood. Not apples to apples. That whole study is a comparison of lending in different neighborhoods.
    How was appraisal inflation racially motivated?
    "Dry up", as in the risk is so high that the terms of any loan are exorbitant. There is always someone willing to loan for high enough down payment and interest.
    I wasn't aware there was a "Book of the Klan". You must know more about that kind of stuff.
    It's a pertinent fact. Didn't know that Limbaugh or Hannity ever said it.
    You still keep avoiding making any correlation between beliefs about Obama and racism. If you're tired of dodging, quit bringing it up.
    For your benefit, I already posted the stats on hate crimes by race. I assume that more directly answers that point.
    And it was murders, not general crime.
    So you think that any "negative effects from racism" must include "lacking legal means of success"?
    There's no lessor effects from racism that you can think of beside legal ones?
    Sounds histrionic.
    Why, are these questions uncomfortable?
    I'm sorry, did I miss answering any direct questions from you? If so, please point them out and I'll rectify that.
    If you were more interested in learning what others thought, instead of making assertions, maybe you would have already asked me my opinion.
    Oops. Were we supposed to be trying to win something? What's the prize?
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't think anyone can get moralistic unless they come to the party with clean hands themselves. And this country didn't start with a clean slate, it began with the original sin of slavery. I think crime and murder are differences of degree, both come from the same source. Desperate people have nothing to lose.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Racial bias in appraisal existed.
    And the whole purpose of comparing apples to apples is to compare different apples.

    This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp - that the people in a black neighborhood can be in all other respects comparable to those in a white neighborhood, apples to apples. Do you understand why you are having trouble with that?
    Yes. That is assumed, as well-established common reality. Re-arguing the normally racist foundation of birther beliefs, say, is not on the agenda.
    It is not a pertinent fact.
    Exactly. And we see that such cannot have been the case, did not happen, since so much Ferguson real estate was purchased on credit and/or used as collateral, and since white people of equivalent risk found the terms and ease of their mortgages much more within their reach.
    Apparently so. For example, I can identify it in your posting, and you apparently can't.

    Meanwhile, re the onion, some evidence of its state from a steady voice: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16867610/baltimore-cops-trial-racketeering/
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    All people, from every part of the world, have a history of slavery. Even Africans traded in slaves.
    Does history adhere to everyone equally? Or just white Americans?
    So you do, to some degree, think poverty precludes responsibility and morality.
    How do some people from the exact same background manage to be responsible and moral then?
    If all you can offer is a bare assertion, there's no reason to believe you.
    It was comparing neighborhoods, with different property values and crime rates. It wasn't comparing people, with the same income seeking loans for similar property values with similar crime rates.
    Neighborhoods with higher crime rates are bigger loan risks. Just look at all the property damage in Ferguson.
    Your assumptions don't mean much.
    Says you.
    You have not shown any such information.
    Like I said, you seem much more knowledgeable about Klan stuff.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Except you know I'm correct - as does everyone else reading this - because I am simply relaying well-established fact and common knowledge. One must make assumptions for any argument., and well-established facts make good assumptions.
    The effects of American slavery and Jim Crow adhere to white Americans and the country they live in. No need to bother about the others.
    So? It was comparing them carefully based on their relevant characteristics. That's how one compares apples to apples.
    And redlined, racially oppressed neighborhoods (some banks used to draw actual red lines on maps), whose residents can't get ordinary bank financing, soon have higher crime rates.
    They mean your repeated bs about a null hypothesis was obviously bs.
    The linked reports are right here on this thread, and you responded to those posts. Among many other such sources you can find if you are curious.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    If it were well-established or fact, you wouldn't have to rely on bare assertions and assumptions alone. And "everyone knows" is a fallacy.
    So why doesn't African slave trade adhere to people of African descent?
    And why does Jim Crow excuse murder?
    Yep, characteristics that factor into loan making decisions. Not factors that demonstrate racism.
    Again, you'd need to show the correlation, if any.
    Another bare assertion?
    No, assumed correlations do not refute the default null hypothesis.
    Different neighborhoods and crime rates means different property value loan risks. That the people had similar incomes and credit histories is not the only criteria of making a loan. As I've told you many times now.
    You seem to just keep ignoring half the story.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    All populations contain people that exhibit a range of moral behavior which can theoretically be described by a bell curve. My thesis is that poverty in general can account for most of the difference in crime between rich and poor. If someone is already borderline, issues around poverty can send them over the edge.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    I asked about morality and poverty, not rich and poor. So let's test the impact of poverty on crime between races.

    It looks like New Mexico has the closest white (11%) to black (13%) poverty rate. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=0&currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=white--black&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

    So if you're right, crime should be fairly equal between the two in that state, right? If you can find better sources, I'd welcome them, but this is what I'm finding.

    White murder rate in New Mexico is 6.63 per 100,000. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2013/01/white-murder-rates-by-state.html
    Black murder rate in New Mexico is 16.00 per 100,000. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2013/01/black-homicide-rates-by-state.html

    So if poverty is similar, what other factors account for the almost 2.5 times discrepancy?
    Hint: It's not skin color.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's a convenience, not a necessity. No point in rehashing long-settle matters of fact, instead of dealing with the issue at hand.
    No, it's not. It's an observation. I'm not arguing by it, I'm using it to highlight the extreme bullshit quotient of your posting.
    Maybe it does, and you care, and you can start another thread about the state of some African country.
    This is the US - most involved here are of US descent, and all are living with the effects of American plantation slavery.
    Of course. So?
    So one would have to be careful in making comparisons between different apples - they are different, after all. Got it.
    The null hypothesis makes the same assumptions as the causal hypotheses, in any given argument.
    We expect that morality would of course be heavily influenced by racism - most people acquire their morality by the way they are raised, and racial bigotry among the adults of the community has a large effect on that.
     

Share This Page