I’d rather talk about the topic of this thread.
There you go again, putting the blame on the entirety of black Americans for the faults of a relative few. Does your belief that black people as a whole in America are responsible for the relatively few who are violent among them affect how you interact with black people?
Magiver, what would be an effective means of protest for African-Americans(I refuse to use the “AA” shortcut, because that is already in use by Alcoholics Anonymous).
There’s no such thing as black-on-black crime.
What there is, instead, is criminal-on-black crime - by definition. And it’s the police’s job to stop criminals, not the community’s. Instead of criticizing everyone else, the police should do their job, and to do that, they have to gain the trust of the community they’re protecting. First step: stop being racists.
You keep saying this as if it has any meaning. Most folks DON’T believe society is perfect. At best we live in a country with unlimited opportunity.
When you believe that opportunity is unlimited, then that makes it extremely easy to dismiss the complaints of the disadvantaged – if society hasn’t limited their chance to succeed, then only they themselves can. On the other hand, if opportunity has limits for many folks due to inequities in society, then we need to fix our society before blaming all those who haven’t succeeded for their lack of success.
Great idea. As it applies to employees, don’t use your place of business. Don’t drag your employer into it when not working. So, anything that isn’t illegal or harms other people is available as an avenue for protest. Knock yourself out. In the age of the internet you can produce professional quality videos for almost nothing and get a zillion hits. Certainly an easy task for wealthy athletes. They have a ready made following, lots of off-season free-time, and money.
My parents grew up in the great depression. They were “disadvantaged” by your definition. The were not enslaved by a welfare system because it didn’t exist on the scale created in the 60’s. That’s your enemy. That’s the fight. Restoring the nuclear family with parents who are successful and can pass on those life skills on to their children is the goal. It’s universal and not a racial problem. It affects more black people people there was a higher level of poverty in the black community when this was instituted.
I understand this is your opinion, but this is just opinion, not fact, and many folks have different opinions. I think there are many facts and pieces of data (some already cited or mentioned in this thread, like the fact that so many black Americans report that they have personally been mistreated by law enforcement) that strongly indicate large-scale systemic and institutional bias and bigotry which serve as significant barriers towards the chance at success for many folks.
You’ve heard of confirmation bias, haven’t you? Well, what Magiver is displaying here is bias confirmation.
Lots of free off-season time? Where do you get that idea? Or do you think their athletic prowess is simply a function of…nope, I’m not even going to finish that sentence.
Choosing to deflect from other issues facing minorities in this country by continually bringing up other issues is just that - DEFLECTION. Magiver is refusing to face or address other issues because he’s fixed on deflection.
Dude, everything you’ve said since then is just more deflection and obfuscation. Enslaved to welfare? Yeah, that speaks volumes. :smack: NO ONE is ‘enslaved’ by welfare.
Nuclear family? Total bullshit and propaganda. Look back in time a bit, when people tended to die a lot younger. Lots of single parents because their spouse died in childbirth, or of cholera, or workplace accidents, etc, etc. We made it through just fine. The whole ‘nuclear family’ argument is something the religious right made up to attack the idea of gay people getting married and having children. The side benefit of shaming divorced women and widows into remarrying was just a bonus.
Unlimited Opportunity? Blatantly false when some people have their opportunities limited by the color of their skin, their religion, by their poverty or any other of a multitude of reasons.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was hardly a member of “the religious right”, and no one was talking about SSM in 1965.
Wow. That’s amazingly stupid thing to say. And I mean really amazingly stupid. So the poor people who aren’t black and are poor on a generational basis they’re what? Stupid? Assholes? condemned by a witche’s curse?
If you don’t have a strong parental background, and that includes the community at large, it creates a welfare state. I’m done arguing with you on this.
And the black people I went to school went on to lead normal productive lives because they were… what? singular geniuses that all happened to arrive in my community by divine province? No. They came from a stable family background surrounded by other kids with a stable family background.
Stable families are great, and I hope policies will be put into place that make it easier to form and maintain them. Policies like universal health care, higher minimum wage (an actual living wage), covered mental health care, ending the drug war and treating addiction as a disease and not a moral deficiency, reforming the justice system, enabling prisons to rehabilitate and not just punish, since many/most of those folks have children to help raise when they get out, and much more .
Good, because you don’t actually have an argument here. Just name calling, screaming and insisting you’re right.
You sure that’s a great cite for this?
“Moynihan argued that the rise in black single-mother families was caused not by a lack of jobs, but by a destructive vein in ghetto culture”
You’re just shifting responsibility to someone else.
It’s reasonable to talk about public policy and how it affects things like families. Slavery destroyed families – that was public policy. Ending it was also public policy. There are many other examples. If you think more stable families is a good goal – and I think it is – then it’s reasonable to talk about which public policies make it easier, and harder, to form and maintain stable families.
You’re insisting that people are entirely responsible for themselves no matter how hard society shits on them or holds back opportunities for their group.
It’s not about whether you or I agree with Moynahan (or not). It’s about that fact that he was NOT a member of the religious right, and he was NOT trying to thwart SSM when he published his famous report in 1965.