It is when you start off with 'so your argument is ...' and then proceed to assign me a position.
They got dinged by the DOJ for promising something they didn't do (expanding in poor/diverse areas) , NOT because they discriminated against applicants (at least that is what the articles say)
One aspect of study to begin with is how the systemic racism Asians have faced in America has differed from the experience of blacks (slavery) or Native Americans (genocide).We should indeed study them.
No idea, maybe find an article that supports that position.Wrong. A question mark denotes a question. I can't "assign you a position" with a query.
What right does the government have to punish a private business for "not doing something they promised to do", unless that thing they promised to do was adhere to a law or regulation?
Why?One aspect of study to begin with is how the systemic racism Asians have faced in America has differed from the experience of blacks (slavery) or Native Americans (genocide).
Why start from a position of looking at the unique historical experience of each minority when faced with systemic racism in America?Why?
No idea, maybe find an article that supports that position.
Yes. Your answer will differ as to degree from mine, from theirs, from others. Ala subjective because you are trying to define 'harder'Why start from a position of looking at the unique historical experience of each minority when faced with systemic racism in America?
You can keep trying to badger me, or you could support the position you hold, that the previous articles DID NOTThat's what you said. YOU said they got fined for "not doing something they promised to do". I'm asking you what authority the government had to do so.
Insufficient data, sorry.Yes. Your answer will differ as to degree from mine, from theirs, from others. Ala subjective because you are trying to define 'harder'
It should suffice to know that it happened to both. 1 rose, the other fell.
I'm good with that since they can be considered two sides of the same coin. Societies and economies very much rely on human behavior and human choice, and thus are very heavily influenced by culture.No, it's an indication that the problem is sociologic/economic and not racial.
The only data I gave is that both groups were marginalized, and discriminated against.Insufficient data, sorry.
You can keep trying to badger me, or you could support the position you hold, that the previous articles DID NOT
I'm good with that since they can be considered two sides of the same coin. Societies and economies very much rely on human behavior and human choice, and thus are very heavily influenced by culture.
Again, I'm okay with that, but we're splitting hairs. This facet of the debate is about what's driving poverty, racism or something else. You and I are quibbling over the something else.But sociology is not just the study of understanding society, but also how it can be changed and improved. Would you be OK with going beyond just what is, and doing things which may improve it? Or we should not be free to do so?
Again, I'm okay with that, but we're splitting hairs. This facet of the debate is about what's driving poverty, racism or something else. You and I are quibbling over the something else.
The position you were attempting to prove by posting articles ....Support what position? That the government can't punish a private business unless they have violated a law or federal regulation?
That is established fact.
Of course they do, but that begs the question, what is preventing a higher percentage of blacks from even completing high school?You don't think education and public health have anything to do with poverty, or the culture of poverty, in your society? Or with you personally?
Same reasons preventing a higher percentage of Appalachian whites. See post #222.Of course they do, but that begs the question, what is preventing a higher percentage of blacks from even completing high school?
So, NOT racism as is the big push to claim?Same reasons preventing a higher percentage of Appalachian whites. See post #222.
The reality is that some people (not all) are too selfish, stupid, and/or lazy to succeed. We probably all have people in our lives who struggle financially, and some of them seem to always have a reason why they were "never given a chance."So, NOT racism as is the big push to claim?
Now the big questions: Why are some able to succeed, regardless of poverty? And how do we recreate that on a larger scale?
It all comes down to personal choices.
Like minimum wage does.The reality is that some people (not all) are too selfish, stupid, and/or lazy to succeed. We probably all have people in our lives who struggle financially, and some of them seem to always have a reason why they were "never given a chance."
We need a basic safety net in place to keep these folks from realizing fully the consequences of their life choices, but I don't see a compelling need for that safety net to go much behind providing a subsistence living.
Yes, I'd be okay with a sliding scale that addresses an incentive to remain on the dole.Like minimum wage does.
One thing that I would change about our safety net is the cliff.
I dislike people finding work which generates them $20, more than the minimum, and being cut off. This disincentivizes the want to work, or find better fro yourself unless it is much MORE/BETTER.
We need a sliding scale of (temporary) benefits and we need to start holding people accountable for their own decisions.
The position you were attempting to prove by posting articles ....
Redlining... present day...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?