Redistribution mechanics - CRT's view

[Rickeroo]

For the purpose of this thread, take CRT's stance that there are only 2 races and that 'mixed race' does not exist. Hopefully you can all figure out which 2 races CRT is concerned with. Conservatives, please note that "redistribution is wrong" isn't going to be of much use here. The point is to understand CRT, not judge it. Likewise, any comments regarding the poster being 'afraid' will be considered a dodge of CRT's redistribution goals.

For the sake of argument and for round numbers, I'm 100% white, making $100,000 a year with a net worth of $1 million. How much of that would go to a Black person?

Before we get into numbers, perhaps a discussion of how I got that wealth in relation to Blacks is in order. Without Blacks to take advantage of, would I have made less money? Or does it go the other way, where a Black person would have made the same as me if it weren't for systemic racism? Regardless of those mechanics, would it make a difference into how the redistribution plays out?

 

[NatMorton]

For the purpose of this thread, take CRT's stance that there are only 2 races and that 'mixed race' does not exist. Hopefully you can all figure out which 2 races CRT is concerned with. Conservatives, please note that "redistribution is wrong" isn't going to be of much use here. The point is to understand CRT, not judge it. Likewise, any comments regarding the poster being 'afraid' will be considered a dodge of CRT's redistribution goals.

For the sake of argument and for round numbers, I'm 100% white, making $100,000 a year with a net worth of $1 million. How much of that would go to a Black person?

Before we get into numbers, perhaps a discussion of how I got that wealth in relation to Blacks is in order. Without Blacks to take advantage of, would I have made less money? Or does it go the other way, where a Black person would have made the same as me if it weren't for systemic racism? Regardless of those mechanics, would it make a difference into how the redistribution plays out?

For those arguing for reparations, the simple one word answer will ultimately be “more.”

 

[Cardinal]

Just for the record, the OP thinks that a black mall Santa is CRT.

 

[Redress]

Just for the record, the OP thinks that a black mall Santa is CRT.

Lol, really? I mean, his post makes no sense and has jack shit to do with CRT, so I could kinda see it, but that is kinda extreme.

 

[Cardinal]

Lol, really? I mean, his post makes no sense and has jack shit to do with CRT, so I could kinda see it, but that is kinda extreme.

Well no, I was joking. But considering how perfectly obsessed he is with this topic I have to think there’s a good chance that it’s true.

 

[Redress]

Well no, I was joking. But considering how perfectly obsessed he is with this topic I have to think there’s a good chance that it’s true.

It is sad how legitimately hard it is to tell parody these days.

 

[Cardinal]

It is sad how legitimately hard it is to tell parody these days.

I refuse to back down from making parody, but I even more vehemently refuse to add a goddamn /s to it.

It’s a serious dilemma in a world where people have rendered parody obsolete.

 

[CaughtInThe]

some traumatic event (women or sports or violence or sex, etc) happened to the OP during his life. maybe it was just being bullied at school. babies just don't grow up to be this obsessed with race without something like a stolen girlfriend/wife or being laughed at (unless the parents just simply teach it).

 

[Cardinal]

some traumatic event (women or sports or violence or sex, etc) happened to the OP during his life. maybe it was just being bullied at school. babies just don't grow up to be this obsessed with race without something like a stolen girlfriend/wife or being laughed at (unless the parents just simply teach it).

We have a pretty good idea what Bruce Wayne would have done in the age of the internet. Rather than turn himself into a ninja crime-fighting killing machine, he’d more likely bitch about black people on a debate forum every day.

 

[Rickeroo]

For those arguing for reparations, the simple one word answer will ultimately be “more."

I've noticed the left is extremely averse to engaging CRT on redistribution.

 

[NatMorton]

I've noticed the left is extremely averse to engaging CRT on redistribution.

I think many on the left are quietly afraid of a time when race is no longer a consequential issue. It will be a bit like a carpenter losing his hammer.

 

[Master Debator]

I've noticed the left is extremely averse to engaging CRT on redistribution.

No, we're just bored by your classification of every subject regarding race as CRT. But I have no problem relating how hilarious I find your notion that anyone is advocating we take money directly out of your bank account to atone for the racism of the past. Can you link to any liberal seriously suggesting that? Is that what you think serious discussion of reparations looks like?

 

[Rickeroo]

No, we're just bored by your classification of every subject regarding race as CRT. But I have no problem relating how hilarious I find your notion that anyone is advocating we take money directly out of your bank account to atone for the racism of the past. Can you link to any liberal seriously suggesting that? Is that what you think serious discussion of reparations looks like?

CRT doesn't seek redistribution?

 

[Master Debator]

CRT doesn't seek redistribution?

From my understanding of CRT its merely a tool for analyzing and understanding how and why racial disparities continue to exist. What should be done about those disparities is not CRT that's just the result of good people recognizing those disparities and looking for ways to alleviate them.

As for your race baiting conspiracy theory, no one is suggesting we take money directly out of the bank accounts of white people. What is being discussed are ways the government can invest in black communities.

 

[TheParser]

some traumatic event (women or sports or violence or sex, etc) happened to the OP during his life. maybe it was just being bullied at school. babies just don't grow up to be this obsessed with race without something like a stolen girlfriend/wife or being laughed at (unless the parents just simply teach it).

I am NOT referring to the OP.

But I agree that our attitudes are influenced by our experiences (or lack thereof).

When I was a teenager, I was a bleeding heart par excellence.

Then I got a job working with some folks for whom I had previously shed buckets of tears.

Boy! Did I learn how wrong I was.

An awakening can come at any age.

Some grown-up adults who consider themselves very liberal, for example, may change their attitude very quickly if they or one of their loved ones ever has some kind of an unfortunate experience. (I bet come idealistic people became cops but soon became very cynical after being forced to deal with a lot of people they meet every day.)

 

[aociswundumho]

As for your race baiting conspiracy theory, no one is suggesting we take money directly out of the bank accounts of white people. What is being discussed are ways the government can invest in black communities.

Isn't that essentially giving taxpayer money away based on the race of the recipients?

 

[Master Debator]

Isn't that essentially giving taxpayer money away based on the race of the recipients?

Based on the race of recipients or based on the historical mistreatment the recipients have faced based on their race? One implies black people are receiving money simply for being black and one is an acknowledgment of previous injustices.

 

[aociswundumho]

Based on the race of recipients or based on the historical mistreatment the recipients have faced based on their race?

The former.

One implies black people are receiving money simply for being black and one is an acknowledgment of previous injustices.

Agreed. The left wants the former.

Reparations were paid to the Japanese-Americans who suffered injustice after the progressive hero FDR locked them up in concentration camps based on their ethnicity.

Blacks living today were not slaves, and the people the left wants to pay reparations to them were not slave owners.

 

[Master Debator]

The former.

Agreed. The left wants the former.

Reparations were paid to the Japanese-Americans who suffered injustice after the progressive hero FDR locked them up in concentration camps based on their ethnicity.

Blacks living today were not slaves, and the people the left wants to pay reparations to them were not slave owners.

Presumably some of those Japanese Americans died before they could be compensated, should that compensation have gone to their kin? Also presumably some people immigrated to America after the internment of Japanese Americans but before the passage of the legislation that granted them reparations, do you think they should have been exempt from the taxes that went to pay for that? And finally do you not recognize segregation and red-lining as injustices? Or do you imagine those injustices happened in some distant?

 

[Lutherf]

For the purpose of this thread, take CRT's stance that there are only 2 races and that 'mixed race' does not exist. Hopefully you can all figure out which 2 races CRT is concerned with. Conservatives, please note that "redistribution is wrong" isn't going to be of much use here. The point is to understand CRT, not judge it. Likewise, any comments regarding the poster being 'afraid' will be considered a dodge of CRT's redistribution goals.

For the sake of argument and for round numbers, I'm 100% white, making $100,000 a year with a net worth of $1 million. How much of that would go to a Black person?

Before we get into numbers, perhaps a discussion of how I got that wealth in relation to Blacks is in order. Without Blacks to take advantage of, would I have made less money? Or does it go the other way, where a Black person would have made the same as me if it weren't for systemic racism? Regardless of those mechanics, would it make a difference into how the redistribution plays out?

Why not give all of it to some black person? You'd never have that stuff if not for the racist system designed by whites, for whites, and with the express intent of killing black people. Just look at majority non-white nations. Notice how racism and oppression simply don't exist in places like Somalia and Guinea?

 

[XDU]

For the purpose of this thread, take CRT's stance that there are only 2 races and that 'mixed race' does not exist. Hopefully you can all figure out which 2 races CRT is concerned with. Conservatives, please note that "redistribution is wrong" isn't going to be of much use here. The point is to understand CRT, not judge it. Likewise, any comments regarding the poster being 'afraid' will be considered a dodge of CRT's redistribution goals.

For the sake of argument and for round numbers, I'm 100% white, making $100,000 a year with a net worth of $1 million. How much of that would go to a Black person?

Before we get into numbers, perhaps a discussion of how I got that wealth in relation to Blacks is in order. Without Blacks to take advantage of, would I have made less money? Or does it go the other way, where a Black person would have made the same as me if it weren't for systemic racism? Regardless of those mechanics, would it make a difference into how the redistribution plays out?

This isn't the point of CRT. It's not about quantifying income through reparations: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendmen...race theory (CRT) is,a nexus of American life.

It's about understanding how the qualitative legal system is rigged such that certain rulings will happen just because society is accustomed to certain circumstances. It calls these circumstances systemic, historical, and institutional prejudice.

The theory is still wrong, but not because of what you're implying here.

 

[XDU]

CRT doesn't seek redistribution?

CRT seeks correction of institutional opportunities, not wealth.

It wants to counter-condemn those who benefitted from condemnation so those who were originally condemned get their lives back on track.

The problem is CRT goes overboard. It counter-condemns those who did not benefit from condemnation as much as those who did, and then says people who say they're not privileged really are. They just don't get it.

CRT advocates refuse under any and all circumstances to introspect and realize how they're wrong. To them, anyone who so much as tries to put them on the defensive is automatically offensive.

 

[Lutherf]

This isn't the point of CRT. It's not about quantifying income through reparations: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1254/critical-race-theory#:~:text=Critical race theory (CRT) is,a nexus of American life.

It's about understanding how the qualitative legal system is rigged such that certain rulings will happen just because society is accustomed to certain circumstances. It calls these circumstances systemic, historical, and institutional prejudice.

The theory is still wrong, but not because of what you're implying here.

Watch the Theodore Edgecombe defense to see CRT in action from a legal perspective. When the defense is, "My client was the victim of racism from his assailant and racism from the police system. The fact that he chased the guy, punched the guy, shot the guy and then ran off to another state to hide for six months is all merely proof of how racist the system is" your CRT isn't going to get you much of a reduced sentence.

 

[XDU]

Watch the Theodore Edgecombe defense to see CRT in action from a legal perspective. When the defense is, "My client was the victim of racism from his assailant and racism from the police system. The fact that he chased the guy, punched the guy, shot the guy and then ran off to another state to hide for six months is all merely proof of how racist the system is" your CRT isn't going to get you much of a reduced sentence.

I don't believe in CRT. I'm just talking about what it is and why it's nonsense.

 

[aociswundumho]

Presumably some of those Japanese Americans died before they could be compensated, should that compensation have gone to their kin? Also presumably some people immigrated to America after the internment of Japanese Americans but before the passage of the legislation that granted them reparations, do you think they should have been exempt from the taxes that went to pay for that?

Money only went to those who were actually incarcerated and still alive in the late 80s, but more importantly no taxes should have paid for it. The filthy state agents who committed the crime should have paid for it. We see the same pattern when some stupid pig murders an innocent person - the taxpayer pays the surviving family members, and the state agent who committed the crime pays nothing.

And finally do you not recognize segregation and red-lining as injustices? Or do you imagine those injustices happened in some distant?

Thomas Sowell has studied red-lining extensively:

The practice of not lending in some neighborhoods was demonized as “redlining” and the fact that minority applicants were approved for mortgages only 72 percent of the time, while whites were approved 89 percent, was called “overwhelming” evidence of discrimination by the Washington Post.

Some people are more easily overwhelmed than others, especially when they find statistics that seem to fit their preconceptions. But if we do what politicians and the media seldom bother to do – stop and think – an entirely different picture emerges.

In our personal lives, common sense leads us to avoid some neighborhoods. If you want to call that “redlining,” so be it. But places where it is dangerous to go are often also places where it is dangerous to send your money.

As for racial differences in mortgage loan application approval rates, that does not tell you much if you are comparing apples and oranges. Income, credit history and net worth are just some of the things that are very different from one group to another.

More important, in the same ways that blacks differ from whites, whites differ from Asian Americans.

The fact that whites are turned down for conventional mortgage loans, and resort to subprime loans, more often than Asian Americans do is seldom reported in “news” stories about lending practices, even though such data are readily available.

Shocking as it may be to some, lenders are in the business of making money, and they don’t much care whose money it is, so long as they get paid.

Politicians, on the other hand, are in the business of getting votes, and they don’t much care whose votes it is – or what they have to say or do in order to get those votes.